Description and Analysis of Structure 144 Jamestown, Virginia

Home , Edward Digges, Jamestown Church, Jamestown Island, Philip Ludwell

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE 144 JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA

Report to APVA JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Division 20 August 2002 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE 144 JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA

Report to APVA JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY

Cary Carson, Willie Graham, Carl Lounsbury, and Martha McCartney Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Division 20 August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V

CHAPTER 1: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

The Development of Structure 144 1-1 Appendix 1-A: Mortar Analysis of Structure 144 1-A-1 Appendix 1-B: Analysis of Paint from Mortar Sample, Structure 144 1-B-1 Appendix 1-C: Jamestown Brick and Plaster Samples, Structure 144 1-C-1 Appendix 1-D: Recommendations for Additional Research 1-D-1

CHAPTER 2: ENGLISH BACKGROUND

Seventeenth-Century Precedents in Brick Construction in England and Virginia 2-1 Appendix 2-A: Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth-Century Brick Buildings in England 2-A-1 Appendix 2-B: Brick Buildings in the Early Chesapeake 2-B-1

CHAPTER 3: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Evaluation of the Documentary and Cartographic Record Associated with Structure 144 3-1 Appendix 3-A: Patent to William Sherwood, 1681 3-A-1 Appendix 3-B: Grant to Phillip Ludwell, 1694 3-B-1 Appendix 3-C: Patent to Edward Chilton, 1683 3-C-1 Appendix 3-D: Memorandum, “Documents Pertaining to the Berkeley Row” 3-D-1 Appendix 3-E: Responses to APVA Research Queries 3-E-1 Appendix 3-F: E-mail Memorandum, “Structure 17 and 144” 3-F-1 Appendix 3-G: Robert Beverley’s House Lot 3-G-1

CHAPTER 4: DRAWINGS

Archaeological Plan Reconstructed Plans of House 5, Period I Reconstructed Plans of House 5, Period II Reconstructed South and East Elevations of Structure 144 Reconstructed Bird’s-Eye View of Structure 144 INTRODUCTION

The approach of the four hundredth anniver- ered the ruins of Jamestown’s seat of provin- sary of the Jamestown settlement in 2007 has cial government and christened the row the renewed interest in Virginia’s first colonial Ludwell Statehouse Group (LSG). He declared capital. Since the mid 1990s a team of APVA the large building at the eastern end of the row Jamestown Rediscovery archaeologists has led to be the statehouse erected in the 1660s, a much of this effort, notably by excavating the structure that was torched by rebels during the area where the first fort stood, but also by calamities of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, rebuilt revisiting a site that was initially examined a in the 1680s by Philip Ludwell, and burnt a century ago. In 1903 Colonel Samuel Yonge, second and final time in 1698. the civil engineer responsible for erected the seawall that protects Jamestown Island from This history of the site has been repeated by erosion by the James River, discovered subsequent historians and taken as gospel by foundations of a long row of buildings on a archaeologists in the 1950s. Their full-scale slight rise of land a few hundred feet west of the excavations of the statehouse destroyed much surviving late seventeenth-century church of the diagnostic evidence that could have tower. Yonge pursued the course of the foun- proved or disproved Yonge’s conclusions. New dations, capped them in concrete, and ex- readings of the documentary record in recent plained their historical context in a Virginia years have called into question the history of Magazine of History and Biography article in the site. When Jamestown Rediscovery began 1904. Based on his reading of the documentary the re-exploration of the site in 2000, director evidence, Yonge believed that he had discov- William Kelso asked members of the Colonial

Archaeological plan of the Ludwell Statehouse Group as uncovered and interpreted by Colonel Sameul Yonge in 1903. Published in Yonge, “The Site of Old ‘James Towne,’ 1607-1698,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, July 1904. Williamsburg Foundation Research Division dents for the masonry of Structure 144, tracing and independent historian Martha McCartney parallels in brick construction in England and to review the archaeological, architectural, Virginia in the seventeenth century. The and documentary evidence in order to provide report examines the architectural detailing guidance and context for test excavations. This and chronology of brick building from bonding work brought to light important new informa- patterns to decorative finishes. Two appendi- tion about the sequence of construction, ces accompany this section. The first lists brick alterations, and architectural finishes of the features in nearly a hundred English structures rowhouse, which has since been designated by that we surveyed in the spring of 2001. The the National Park Service as Structure 144. It second is a similar list of brick details compiled also casts doubt on some of the few key documents that researchers have always assumed, but never proved, pertained to these buildings. Ravensmere, Beccles, Norfolk, England, dating to 1694. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. This report reviews these recent findings. It is divided into several sections. The first analyzes archaeological evidence in order to reconstruct an architectural history of the row by tracing the sequence of expansion and alteration in the several houses. It places the plan, function, and decorative details of these buildings in the context of building in Virginia and England in the second half of the seventeenth century. The appendices that accompany this section include an analysis of the mortar composition of 33 samples taken from various locations in Struc- ture 144. The second appendix reports on coated surfaces—painted brickwork and plaster—from several houses in the row. Perhaps the most intriguing discovery of the past year has been evidence that demonstrates the builders of this row painted the outside brickwork red. The last appendix presents a series of recommendations for additional archaeological research.

The second section of the report examines prece-

Introduction iii Reconstructed south elevation of Structure 144 as it might have appeared before final destruction in 1698. It is likely that House 2 remained in ruins after Houses 3 and 4 were rebuilt about 1694. Drawing by William Graham, Jr. for buildings in Virginia dating from the thorough scrutiny to which they have been seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries. subjected, further refinement of the Ludwell Statehouse Group story will only be achieved The third section reviews documentary and once additional excavations on the site are cartographic sources that pertain to these undertaken. Only then can we be certain that a foundations. It evaluates material that has complete and accurate story has been told. long been associated with the history of the building, paring it down to only a handful of Meanwhile, given the information on hand at references that seem indisputably connected the time of writing this report, we can say that to the site. Much of the controversy over the preponderance of evidence points to the whether this site was indeed what Yonge easternmost unit of Structure 144 (House 5) as believed it to be a century ago—the colony’s having been the statehouse that was built in statehouse from 1665 to 1698—hinges upon 1665, burned by Bacon’s rebels in 1676, and the careful reading of this evidence. rebuilt in 1684 to serve as the final statehouse at Jamestown. We have come to this assump- The final part of the report consists of a series tion based largely on the documentary record, of drawings depicting the sequential develop- primarily on a land grant to Phillip Ludwell in ment of the site, reconstructed elevations, and 1694, a manuscript that seemingly can refer to a bird’s-eye view of the building as it might no other building on the island other than have appeared late in the seventeenth cen- Structure 144. This same document alludes to tury. These drawings demonstrate the extent functions for the rest of the row. House 1 at the of our understanding of the architecture of west end of the complex was a country house, Structure 144. For some elements, the evi- and Houses 2, 3 and 4 were in ruins at this dence is abundantly clear, for others, we can time. Our reasoning would seem to take us full only guess as to their form and configuration circle, back to Colonel Yonge’s interpretation based on English precedents and archaeologi- 98 years ago. And yet, the most important cal evidence. lesson we learned from this assignment is the need to complete the excavation of Structure 144 and its environs. Only then can our hy- Finally, it should be noted that our analysis is pothesis be fully tested against the remaining tempered by the paucity of associated docu- physical evidence that has yet to be examined. ments and the limited extent to which Struc- The complete re-examination of the site— ture 144 has been reexcavated. It has been particularly the original stratigraphy surviving difficult to satisfactorily reconcile an incom- in Houses 3 and 4 and evidence of a fence that plete understanding of the physical develop- may have enclosed a yard in front of the ment of the foundations with the fragmentary statehouse—will be vital to verify the conclu- written record. Given the exhaustive search sions of this report. for documents related to this site and the

Introduction iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENMTS

For more than two years since entering into a their analysis of mortar and paint at Structure formal agreement with the APVA Jamestown 144. They answered our many questions with Rediscovery, members of this research project promptness and unfailing interest. At Colonial have spent many hours investigating the Williamsburg, Greg Brown, Heather Harvey, archaeological, architectural, and documen- and Carrie Alblinger of the Archaeology tary evidence pertaining to Structure 144. Department helped us with the cartography. During that time, numerous individuals from a Edward Chappell was an active participant in variety of institutions helped pull together the field during our investigation of English information or dig an extra few layers to brickwork in the spring of 2001. Finally, Billie resolve many of the vexing issues concerning Graham produced many of the graphics for the the site’s history. Foremost, we are grateful to report and did much to give the layout a more Dr. William Kelso and his staff of Jamestown lively appearance. Rediscovery for allowing us to be a part of the process of re-examining the foundations and artifacts associated with the rowhouse. Jamie May unfailingly provided us with drawings, photographs, and answered questions both on and off the site as her team investigated areas that piqued our interest. Archaeology is labor- intensive scholarship and we recognize that there were indeed hundreds of hands of stu- dents, volunteers, and staff members involved at Structure 144 whom we would like to thank. Among the many who worked this project were, Daniel Schmidt, Dan Gamble, Tonia Rock, Ted Wolf, Ernelyn Marx, Adam Heinrich, Ashley Mckeown, Carter Hudgins, Jr., and Sarah Stroud. Michael Lavin took many of the record photographs for the APVA, many of which were copied for our use. Bly Straube made available for review the collection of artifacts from the recent work undertaken by the APVA as well as material recovered in the 1950s excavations. We deeply appreciate her insights into the dating and significance of the artifacts from this site.

Because the National Park Service works in partnership with the APVA at Jamestown, we would like to thank chief historian Karen Rehm and others on the staff at the Colonial National Park for taking an interest in this project. They have allowed us to review material in their collections at Jamestown, from archaeological fieldnotes to artifacts. We are indebted to the expertise of James Crenshaw of Froehling and Robertson, Susan Buck, and Mark Kutney for

Acknowledgements v CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LUDWELL STATEHOUSE GROUP

Foundations of the Ludwell Statehouse Group outlined with a concrete cap. Photograph, plate 11 in John Cotter, Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia, (1958). Yonge concluded in an article in the Virginia INTRODUCTION Magazine of History and Biography in 1904 that the larger, easternmost unit was the n 1903 Colonel Samuel Yonge excavated remains of the last statehouse to be erected in the ruins of a long row of buildings on a Jamestown. Naming the entire unit after a late Islight rise of land west of the Jamestown seventeenth-century owner of the adjoining church tower. This row ran from the seawall rowhouse and the builder of the statehouse in inland in an east-west direction. He uncovered 1685, Yonge christened his site the Ludwell the remnants of four brick houses, each mea- Statehouse Group (LSG).1 The entire set of suring roughly 20 by 40 feet (inside to inside buildings has been given the designation measurement) with subsequent rear additions Structure 144 by the National Park Service to that doubled their original depth. Yonge found fit the numbering system of other sites on the bases for a number of chimneys, though he Jamestown Island. Located on land owned by misread the archaeological evidence for some the Association for the Preservation of Virginia of them, believing them to be internal parti- Antiquities since the late nineteenth century, tions. At the far east end of this row was a the site was partially re-excavated twice in the much larger unit measuring 74 feet in length, 1950s, which resulted in the discovery of 20-feet deep with a large square addition in the numerous burials that predated the construc- center of the north wall measuring approxi- tion of these buildings. This work did little to mately 16 by 17 feet and the foundation of a confirm or refine Yonge’s earlier conclusions, front porch on the south side. yet it destroyed much of the archaeological record of the eastern end unit. In 2000 the Piecing together the fragmentary record of APVA returned to LSG to conduct a series of seventeenth-century land patents and deeds, test units in an attempt to clarify the archaeo-

Chapter 1 1-1 logical record of this much examined but nearly identical and those to Houses 3 and 4 greatly confusing site. Jamestown Rediscovery following a slightly different form. Moreover, opened several test units to provide a better Houses 3 and 4 received front porch towers glimpse of construction sequences and to see if and reconfigured chimneys at the same time any new light might be shed on the function their rear additions were constructed. and chronology of the row of houses. In September 2000 a number of mortar samples This report is an assessment of the architec- were taken from these units and analyzed by tural development of Structure 144 based on the Richmond firm of Froehling and Robertson the archaeological evidence discovered in the as an aid in determining building periods.2 early 1900s, 1950s, and 2000-2001. Since it is Work continued through most of 2001 concen- difficult to link documentary evidence to this trating on the easternmost building. By the end site, it is based almost entirely upon inferences of the year, Jamestown Rediscovery had drawn from the ground and from precedents reopened this area within the limits of the and parallels found at other sites at Jamestown 1950’s work, excavated most of the burials, and from standing structures in the Chesa- and tested several areas farther west closer to peake and England. The recent work by the river. Jamestown Rediscovery has revealed significant areas where the stratigraphy is well For the first time since Colonel Yonge’s exca- preserved, especially in the front sections of vations, the APVA Jamestown Rediscovery re- Houses 3 and 4. Testing these areas in the examination of the site has provided a better future should disclose evidence for the chro- measure of the construction sequences of this nological history of the entire site that now long row of seventeenth-century buildings. remains elusive. Until these archaeological Even so, many issues concerning the chronol- investigations are made, the conclusions ogy of building and destruction remain unre- reached in this report must be considered solved. For the purposes of this review, the provisional. houses in the LSG are numbered 1 to 5 moving from west to east, from the river’s edge inland. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION This numbering system designates the longer, 20 by 74-foot unit at the east end, which has been traditionally described as the third and Houses 1 and 2, 3 and 4 fourth statehouses, as House 5. Each of the other four houses was originally 40 feet long, Excavations in 2000 and 2001 reveal that this stretching east to west, and 20 feet deep from row was erected from a west to east direction, south to north. These four houses later re- moving from the riverfront inland. Although ceived rear additions to the north, which the 1901 seawall cut across the foundation of nearly matched the size of the original front the westernmost house (House 1), Colonel sections. This expansion occurred in pairs, Yonge recorded the location of a well just a few with the rear additions to Houses 1 and 2 being feet beyond the western end of the house

Chapter 1 1-2 in one campaign. A straight joint occurs at the eastern (outside) face of the north- south wall that forms the end of House 2. In other words, the brickwork for House 3 abuts House 2 and not the reverse, so that House 3 did not have a separate west wall, but instead used the eastern wall of House 2 as its party wall. Eight mortar samples taken from the first two houses matched very closely in terms of lime to sand ratio, color, and size of sand particles, confirming that the foundations of these two units were laid at the same time. Foundations of House 2, looking southwest. Note the remains of floor joists in the foreground with two Whether a matter of days, months, or years, excavated holes cutting through them. Photograph the next construction sequence occurred with by Willie Graham, 2001. the addition of Houses 3 and 4 inland to the east of the first two houses. Although it seems almost even with the back, north wall. The likely that Houses 3 and 4 were part of the location of a well in this position suggests that same general building campaign as the first two there were no houses west of House 1 that had units with some slight differences that remain been lost due to river erosion. Starting at the from the archaeological record. Flat tiles and now missing southwest edge of the west wall of slates covered Houses 1 and 2, while pantiles House 1, the south foundation wall ran east- were used on Houses 3 and 4. The pantiles ward approximately 80 feet before it termi- discovered in the second set of houses may nated with a foundation break joint between House 2 and House 3. This indicates that House 1 and 2 were built together

View looking north at foundations of House 5 to the right where it abuts that of House 4. Graves in foreground predate the building, including one beneath foundations of House 4. Lower row of bricks for that wall is slightly stepped, unlike the treatment for House 5. Photo- graph by Carl Lounsbury, 2001.

Chapter 1 1-3 date from later changes made to them at the of development for Structure 144 is not evi- end of the century. Unless there is conclusive dent from the remains of the foundations. documentary evidence to the contrary, it is There are two possibilities. Either Houses 1 and reasonable to assume that they all may have 2 were doubled in size with an addition put on been erected after 1662 with the passage of the the back of them, or the easternmost unit town-building act that initiated the construc- (House 5) was built onto the end of House 4. If tion of other rows in Jamestown. the eastern unit was the statehouse, then it was in place by 1665 when it was reported that a The surviving courses of the south foundation structure was “already built to accommodate wall of Houses 3 and 4 run continuously eighty the affairs of the country.”3 If this is indeed the feet before they terminate at a straight joint on case, then it seems probable that House 5 was the eastern side of the north-south wall at the built before the additions were made to the east end of House 4. The foundations of the pairs of dwellings to the west. south wall of House 5 (Yonge’s statehouse) are laid against this end wall, indicating that this The physical evidence of the foundations 74-foot long building was erected following the reveals that the north addition to Houses 1 and construction of Houses 3 and 4. As is the case 2 occurred before the expansion of Houses 3 with House 3 where it meets House 2, the and 4. At the northwest corner of the north statehouse has only three exterior walls, addition to House 3, the west wall returns and relying on the earlier one to form the fourth heads southward about four feet before it wall. The similarity of the mortar in Houses 3 terminates in a straight joint against the and 4 confirms the simultaneous construction northeast corner of the north addition of of these two units. The unique character of this House 2. It follows, then, that the House 2 mortar was revealed by samples taken from addition had to have come earlier than the the outward face of these two houses that show additions to Houses 3 and 4. The presence of a a higher lime content than those taken from limestone base as the first course in the short the inside face. This suggests that the bricklay- west wall of the House 3 addition where it ers deliberately selected a stronger mortar— truncates against the House 2 addition is one with a higher lime to sand ratio—for the repeated all along the north wall of the addi- exterior walls to protect them from the ele- tion to House 3 and 4 as well as the east wall of ments. The interior walls were laid in a softer the addition to House 4. The use of stone is mortar with a higher proportion of clay and rare at Jamestown and strengthens the case sand. While the practice of modulating the that the back additions to Houses 3 and 4 were mortar mixture according to where it was used built in one campaign. The north addition to was often noted in eighteenth-century specifi- Houses 3 and 4 share a party wall that contains cations in the area, it is clear in this case that it a chimney with hearths on either side to heat was used as early as the third quarter of the each of the contiguous rooms. John Cotter in seventeenth century. This contrast between Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, inside and outside mortar also distinguishes Virginia noted the presence of a cellar in the Houses 3 and 4 from Houses 1 and 2 and House western half of the north addition of House 4.4 5 where no such variation in the mortar A test unit (5018) made in the northwest mixture was made. The foundations of all five corner of this space by the Jamestown Redis- houses were laid in a very sloppy English bond. covery team showed no signs of a cellar. No Enough evidence survives in the north wall of cellar entrance interrupted the north wall. It House 4 to indicate that it had a stepped seems unlikely that there would have been watertable with English bonding continuing only an internal stair, an arrangement that is above it. unusual throughout the colonial period.

This north addition was part of a larger renova- Additions and Alterations to Houses tion to the original sections of Houses 3 and 4. 1 and 2, 3 and 4 In the older parts of these houses, the central chimney was taken down and new end chim- Although Houses 3 and 4 followed the con- neys built in the center of each of their end struction of Houses 1 and 2, the next sequence walls. The north cheeks in both of these origi-

Chapter 1 1-4 nal center chimneys had been bonded into the evidence also indicates that there was no north wall of the two houses. (Incidentally, the hearth projecting beyond the cheeks of the north cheeks of these two chimneys extended fireplace since the joists stop at the face of the at least a brick and a half into the room. Yonge cheeks). Cutting through two of these joists are in 1904 and Cotter in 1958 do not show these the scaffold holes. These two holes align with features, but drew the chimneys as if they had the cheek walls of the new western chimney in no separate north cheek). Yonge misidentified House 3. To change the chimney locations in these center chimneys describing them instead Houses 3 and 4, the builders erected scaffold- as closets. He even thought that he found four ing on the western side of the party wall that worn brick thresholds for doorways between had separated Houses 2 and 3. In order to do the front and back sections of these houses, an this House 2 had to have been roofless at the assertion that seems unwarranted on examin- time the new chimneystack was erected on the ing these elements once again in the 2000- west wall of House 3. Debris discovered in the 2001 excavation. scaffold holes included a fragment of a pantile and a type of ceramic that was used not before There is strong new archaeological evidence to the very late seventeenth-century. The evi- suggest that the chimney renovations were dence, then, suggests that House 2 stood in done at a time when House 2 was in ruins. In ruins late in the century as House 3 and 4 were House 3, a new chimney was erected against modified and rebuilt. the west wall of House 2 and another chimney erected against the party wall between Houses The same pattern of internal changes occurred 3 and 4. Excavation of the eastern half of in House 4. Archaeological investigation of the House 2 in 2001 revealed a pair of scaffold View of east chimney of House 4, with House 5 in holes that penetrated the destruction layer of background. This chimney was added at a later date; House 2. Substantial evidence of burnt floor its cheeks do not bond into the gable wall of House 4 joists that ran in an east to west direction and its mortar matches other later alterations. appears in the east room of House 2. (This Photograph by Carl Lounsbury, 2001.

Chapter 1 1-5 chimney base on the east wall of House 4 reveals that it was not bonded into that end wall, confirming that it was a later addition. Any evidence for a similar pair of scaffold holes outside the east wall of House 4, which would be situated inside the western room of House 5, did not materialize in the recent excavations, which Detail of rubbed hearth brick, east chimney, House suggests that the construction of the east 4. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. chimney of House 4 may have had to take into consideration the presence of House 5 at the time in a way that was unnecessary for House same time. This alteration fits a pattern found 2. This east gable-end chimney that abuts elsewhere in Jamestown. The most direct House 5 had a hearth made of gauged-and- parallel are the two eastern end units of Struc- rubbed bricks. With the exception of some ture 115 to west of the LSG site that also had bricks found within the original fort that may their lobby entry plans changed following their have had an industrial application and date to destruction in 1676 during Bacon’s Rebellion. c. 1610, the first rubbed bricks that have been There, each of the two, eastern 40- by 20-foot recorded in the Chesapeake are from the tower houses of an original four-unit structure had of St. Luke’s (Newport Parish) Church in Isle of their central chimney removed and replaced Wight County (c. 1682). The first use of gauged by two separate gable-end chimneys. In brick that has been observed is at the College addition, the easternmost house also received of William and Mary (c. 1695-97). It could be a front porch tower as well as a cellar. These argued that the hearth was re-laid late in the alterations are part of trends that appeared century. However, if not, then the gauged throughout Virginia. At the end of the seven- brickwork indicates a late seventeenth-century teenth- and beginning of the eighteenth cen- date for the alterations to Houses 3 and 4. tury, lobby-entry, center-chimney plans gave Although Colonel Yonge indicated that House way to building with gable-end chimneys, 4 also had brick paving in the western front some of which had porch towers. room and the west back room of the addition, recent investigations suggest that Yonge Yonge also identified a porch slightly smaller misread the evidence and that no such paving in size that straddled the party wall between existed in these two rooms. Houses 2 and 3. It makes no sense as a second porch for House 3 in its location at the extreme The south porches that Yonge found in the western end of the building where it would center of the south façade of Houses 3 and 4 have opened onto the cheek of the gable-end were part of the same renovation. Once again fireplace. Moreover, its location is problemati- archaeological testing of the brickwork of the cal given that it would have crossed property porch at House 3 shows that it was not bonded lines. Investigation of this area in 2001 re- to the original south wall of the building. vealed merely brick rubble. Unlike all the Mortar samples taken from the east gable-end other foundations that retain several courses fireplace in House 4 and the west porch wall in of bonded brickwork, here there was nothing House 3 are nearly identical, strongly suggest- to suggest that this feature was anything more ing that these two additions occurred at the than destruction debris. It is difficult to imag- Chapter 1 1-6 opened at the junction of the central chimney and north back wall of the original section exposed charring that suggests this area, too, may have well preserved stratigraphy that should be investigated at a later time.

House 5

Sometime after the construction of the four, 20- by 40-foot houses at LSG, a large 74- West chimney, House 5. Note the stepped watertable foot long and 20-foot wide structure was added on the north wall and chimney base. At this end of to the eastern wall of House 4. The physical the row, the water table on the main wall would have barely been exposed, while that on the chimney evidence is ambiguous as to whether this must have been hidden. Photograph by Carl addition occurred before or after the four Lounsbury, 2001. houses received their north additions and alterations to the original plan of Houses 3 and ine what Colonel Yonge saw to lead him to 4. If these foundations are the remains of the delineate in concrete a porch in this location. statehouse built following a call for the construction of one in the early 1660s, then it was The clearing of the backfill from the area of the in place by 1665. Thus far, the reinvestigation 1955 excavations exposed several places in of the physical evidence of the remaining the four houses where the early stratigraphic foundations sheds no light on the chronology. record remains in tact. The 1950s testing As with the other walls in LSG, the foundations extended several feet into the eastern room of of House 5 are laid in English bond and are House 4. The removal of this fill left exposed a relatively shallow, no more than a few courses cross-section through this room, showing the before they step in to form a stepped presence of a series of charred floor joists, watertable. measuring at least six to eight inches in width and laid on two foot centers, which ran across Above the watertable, the walls were laid in the room in an east-west direction. A trans- irregular English bond. On the north face of the verse summer beam undoubtedly carried them foundations at this level, there are finished or and could be precisely located in the future tooled “grapevine” mortar joints typical of the excavation of this area. It would also provide mason’s repertoire in this region from the further evidence about construction details as seventeenth through the late eighteenth well as shed light on the chronological se- century. John Page’s house, built in 1662 at quence of changes to this house and its identi- Middle Plantation, had struck mortar joints, as cal mate further to the west. What is evident is did Bacon’s Castle (1665) in Surry County. that House 4 was destroyed by fire after the Samples from the finished mortar joints of chimneys had been re-arranged and the porch House 5 analyzed by Susan Buck revealed the added. The arrangement of the burnt floor mortar and bricks were painted with a reddish joists relates to these changes and not the finish consisting of pigments in a binder. A earlier period when there was a central chim- door- or window-jamb brick with cavetto- ney in as much as that the original floor fram- shaped corners found in the 1950s and associ- ing had to be disturbed to demolish the origi- ated with House 5 was painted red on it exte- nal center chimney and construct the two, rior face, providing further evidence for the gable-end ones. A test unit in House 3 partially building being painted. Evidence from House 3

Chapter 1 1-7 indicates that other sections of the structure probably functioned as a very large stair tower were also painted red some time before their to the second floor. Because of this, it is pos- destruction.5 Painted brickwork and mortar sible to construe these elements as later have appeared in other seventeenth-century additions, perhaps evidence of converting a structures in the Chesapeake—Bacon’s Castle dwelling to public use at the time of rebuilding and as part of the third-floor decorative stucco the statehouse in the mid 1680s. Mortar samples from these two features do not match the constituency of the perimeter walls, also suggesting a later campaign of construction. The bottom course of the tower foundations is laid on a layer of dry mortar, a method not used on the main body of the building. Possible evidence for this scenario in the stratigraphy of builder’s trenches was entirely destroyed by the 1950s excavations. Only a small section of the builder’s trench on the east side of the rear north tower survived, but no diagnostically conclusive material was found in it during the recent investigations.6 However, the un- bonded porches with different mortar compositions do not necessarily eliminate these features as part of the original construction process. They simply could have been laid up in a different mortar mixture than the main walls. The size of back room (approximately 15 Mullion brick recovered from the site of House 5. feet by 15 feet inside measurement) is compa- This brick measures 8 1/2” by 4 1/8” x 2 1/2”. It rable to the room containing a stair at Drax was originally painted with a red limewash, Hall, Barbados (c. 1675). It also is similar in incluidng the mortar. size to the stair tower built at the statehouse in St. Mary’s City in the mid 1670s (16 feet long by 12 foot wide inside measurement). tuck pointing at Arlington (1675) on the Eastern Shore. In each of these three cases, the The re-opening of the area excavated in 1955 paint allowed wide or sloppy mortar joints to provided the opportunity to plot other con- be disguised beneath the coating, a solution struction and structural features associated that was used in England at this time as well. with House 5. The few artifacts found in new excavations of this site and a review of mate- An internal partition wall was bonded into the rial recovered in the mid-twentieth century north and south perimeter walls 31 feet east of provide a little more information about the the House 4 end party wall. Recent excava- chronology of the building—though by no tions revealed no matching masonry wall five means clarifying the issue of its function or to ten feet east of the existing partition wall. date of construction and destruction. Remains Such a wall, which would form a central pas- of a wooden floor joist survive in the rear wing. sage, might be expected given the position of This joist ran in an east to west direction but the two chimneys on the north walls. However, was too badly deteriorated to provide dimen- it is just as likely that a frame partition forming sions. Along the front (south) side of the the east wall of the passage was located in this building, a series of scaffold holes appear about position so that no subterranean evidence four feet from the wall running parallel with it would appear. This would be in keeping with in an east to west direction. They are set other buildings where only one partition of a anywhere from eight to ten feet apart and are central passage was constructed of masonry filled with brick and mortar fragments. Some of while the other was framed. these holes were excavated, but the artifactual evidence was chronologically inconclusive. The south front porch is not bonded into the The spacing of them may provide some clue as main walls nor is the north rear wing, which to window placement, presuming that putlogs Chapter 1 1-8 Foundations of House 5, east of west chimney. Note the remains of grapevine joints. Joints were painted with the same red wash as the brickwork, applied before the mortar had dried. Photograph by Carl Lounsbury, 2001. would not be set in a location of an aperture. around 1700. There is little or no domestic Putlog holes at the College of William and Mary material in House 5 (compared to Houses 1 and were centered between openings. The evidence 2). Very early military material (as early as the from the spacing suggests perhaps two win- first quarter of the seventeenth century) was dows on each side of the central porch. It is found in the cellar of House 1. Little is known possible that there may have been at least two about the occupation of Houses 3 and 4 be- periods of scaffold construction. Some holes cause of limited excavation there. There is a appear to cut other holes and may be sugges- great deal of evidence for a fire in these houses tive of a rebuilding or repair of the structure, that post dates the remodeling of them with but not conclusively so. gable-end chimneys and front porch towers.

Artifacts Among the hardware that survived were a few typical seventeenth-century English locks, The re-examination of the few artifacts that hinges, a holdfast or two, and a sizeable num- were saved from the 1955 excavation suggests ber of nails. House 2 contained a strap and a a building from the second half of the seven- cross garnet hinge. Most nails recovered in the teenth century. Systematic analysis of these 1950s were cut nails and are likely remnants of objects and material excavated by Jamestown the early-twentieth century Yonge excava- Rediscovery in 2000 and 2001 needs to be tions. There were also a fair number of wrought made before definitive conclusions can be nails. Some were rose head nails with spade reached. Until then, the impression is that points; others were T-head or clasp nails; but except for a few pipe fragments and early many were headless brads found in the vicinity military hardware, most of the objects seem to of House 5. Such nails were generally used for date from the period between the 1660s and flooring and perhaps indicate a high level of

Chapter 1 1-9 sophistication for use in the seventeenth As first built, the layout of Houses and 3 and 4 century. For example, the loft at Bacon’s Castle resembled the first two houses. Each was a was laid with similar headless brads in 1665. lobby-entrance house with two, ground-floor rooms on either side of a central chimney. Among the other datable artifacts recovered in There is a slight difference between the two the mid-twentieth century were several lead sets of houses in the placement of the chimney. cames found in concentrations just outside the In Houses 3 and 4, the center chimney is set front of House 5 near the junction with House back against the north wall with the founda- 4. Although from a disturbed context, it is tions of the north cheek of each chimney reasonable to assume that they probably came bonded into the wall, whereas in Houses 1 and from one or the other of these houses. Some of 2, the chimney is freestanding. This placement these cames were dated. The earliest dated one of the chimney further back in the house is is labeled IWM 1678; others are inscribed IM identical to the pattern employed on the set of 1683 RD, IM 1683 RD, and WM 1686, suggest- four, lobby-entry houses of Structure 115. This ing that the casements in either one of the arrangement allowed more space for the buildings were installed then or sometime staircase and entrance lobby in front of the later. It could be argued that such were re- chimney. placements following the rebuilding of the statehouse in the mid 1680s or that they came from a new house erected on the site. Arrangement of Rear Additions

All four rowhouses had rear additions made to PLAN them. As in their initial construction, these back or north additions occurred in pairs. Like the front sections, these rear additions differed Lobby-entrance Plan, Houses 1-2, 3- in size and plan between Houses 1 and 2 and 4 Houses 3 and 4. The additions to Houses 1 and 2 are slightly smaller in square footage than The original plan of Houses 1 and 2 were those of the two neighboring units to the east. identical. They were lobby-entry houses with a All of these additions turned the four units into room on both sides of a central chimney. The double-pile houses with at least four large plan had come into fashion in England in the rooms on the ground floor. These additions late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries created some of the earliest double-pile houses and was thus quite fashionable according to in Virginia, matching in square footage on the metropolitan standards. The front entrance ground floor such buildings as the original was centered approximately on each house section of William Berkeley’s Green Spring as and opened into a small staircase vestibule well as Arlington, the Custis House built on the inside. The chimneys stood slightly to the eastern shore in the mid 1670s. north, allowing room for a winder staircase to rise to the second-floor chambers. The north Yonge’s 1903 excavation revealed that Houses cheek of the firebox stood slightly away from 1 and 2 contained rear cellars in the additions. the north rear wall, providing eight to nine feet House 2 still retained part of its paved cellar on the south side for the entryway and stair- floor and a drain (which he interpreted as a case against the south cheek. From outside well) near the western end of the cellar. He cheek to outside cheek, the center chimneys in drew these additions as mirror plans of one these houses measured approximately ten feet another. Stairs of at least eight steps, which in width. A test unit made in the west hearth of were probably covered by a cap, descended House 2 revealed a base of irregular-sized from the back or north wall into the cellars. In stones set in little or no mortar. Above these House 1 the stairway was to the west of center were some brick fragments. However, the poor and in House 2 they were east of center. There condition of this feature suggests that the is a 4’-4 ¾” jog in the back wall in the northeast entire hearth may have been rebuilt or re- corner of House 1 and the northwest corner of worked by Colonel Yonge when he capped the House 2 that formed hearths for each of these foundations in 1903. back spaces. There is no evidence for other

Chapter 1 1-10 LUDWELL STATEHOUSE GROUP STRUCTURE 144, JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT WILLIE GRAHAM

PERIOD I ca. 1663

PERIOD II Shortly after 1663

PERIOD III 1664/65

PERIOD IV After 1665

PERIOD V 1684-5, House 5 rebuilt

House 2 in ruins

PERIOD VI ca. 1694

0 25

FEET chimneys in these additions. There may have Cotter are correct, these back hearths are been a cellar fireplace in each of these two larger than the new gable-end ones in the houses, possibly used as a cooking fireplace. If original section, suggesting that the cooking so, it would have shifted the kitchen from one function of the building was removed from the of the two original ground-floor rooms to this front to the rear of the house. newly created space. Precedent for subterranean kitchens appear in a number of seven- The removal of the center chimney mass also teenth-century English dwellings, a practice forced a reconfiguration of the plan of the that also was used in Virginia at this time in the house. Because the internal lobby no longer three rowhouses known as Structure 17 at existed, the porch on the south front served Jamestown as well as at Bacon’s Castle in Surry this function, providing a buffer between the County. outside and inside. Instead of two, nearly equal-sized rooms, a partition was built It is impossible to determine from archaeology roughly parallel to one of the side walls of the the ground and upper floor arrangement of porch, creating a much larger room, known as Houses 1 and 2. Presumably, there were at the hall, and a small, inner room known as the least two back rooms on the ground floor, one chamber or parlor. In the case of House 3, the of which may have been heated. Access to the hall was probably on the eastern side and the back rooms from the front spaces would have reverse was the case in House 4. There is a been from one or both of the front rooms with strong likelihood that evidence for the exact possibly a rear door leading to the outside on position of this partition is still in situ in House the back of each of the houses to one side of the 4. The remnants of the charred floor joists that protruding cellar entrance. These back rooms appear in the eastern room of House 4 prob- probably served as service spaces and perhaps ably terminate at the remains of a larger girder a bedchamber with more bedchambers on the running in a north-south direction a few feet second floor above if these units were used as further west. Inside this larger hall, a new residences. There may have been a second staircase, perhaps in one of the corners, rose stair in the back to provide access to the to the second floor. A doorway at the back of second-floor chambers and storage spaces. the hall gave access to the one heated room in Yet, it is just as possible that there was no the rear addition, most likely the kitchen. access from the rear but only from the original Archaeological evidence suggests that this staircase in the front, lobby entrance. If these room was plastered.7 The other room or additions were two stories, then, it seems likely rooms in the rear addition probably provided that the builders added another longitudinal service space for domestic chores and perhaps gable roof that would parallel the front one, additional sleeping quarters. creating an M-shaped configuration. As noted earlier, fragments of roofing tiles from this area suggest that these structures were covered House 5 with flat, terracotta tiles. If House 5, the building at the end of this row of houses, was the statehouse, then the plan of Plan of Houses 3 and 4 after Alter- the building is fairly well known. Samuel Yonge ations laid these out in his 1904 article. He posited that from its construction by 1665 to its The alterations made to the original plans of second burning in 1698, the statehouse con- Houses 3 and 4 were part of a trend in Virginia tained rooms for the General Court (the gover- architecture in the late seventeenth and early nor and his councilors), the House of Bur- eighteenth centuries. For a variety of reasons, gesses, the clerk of the Assembly, and the the lobby-entry plan, which was retained with secretary of the colony. Throughout this time, the doubling of Houses 1 and 2, was jettisoned the Burgesses sat in a large chamber on the with the expansion of Houses 3 and 4. Two second floor of the structure and the General smaller, gable-end fireboxes replaced the Court convened below them on the ground earlier central chimney, and a new chimney floor. Yonge presumed that this meant the was erected on the party wall between the two easternmost part of the statehouse since he rear additions. If the drawings by Yonge and believed these to be the larger rooms in the

Chapter 1 1-12 building. He discovered the foundations of an into question Yonge’s certainty about the internal partition wall in this unit approxi- function of the two spaces on both floors. mately 30 feet east of the party wall with House 4 but did not find another. This suggested to If the building dates to 1665 and had a center him that the building was divided along this passage, then it is easily the earliest one in party wall into two rooms of unequal size, a Virginia. It would even be precocious for smaller western room measuring 30 feet in England at this level of building. If it were length and a larger eastern room measuring constructed two decades later, then a passage about 41 feet in length in internal dimensions. would be slightly more plausible as known The north-south party wall terminated at its examples from the 1690s appeared in the southern end in the exact location where the colony. The symmetry created by such a plan western wall of the south porch hit. Thus, suggests a later date, closer to the end of the Yonge believed that one entered through this seventeenth century or even early eighteenth porch into the lower end of the larger room century rather than the 1660s.8 (the courtroom) with a partition wall immediately to the west of the front doorway separat- It is plausible to think of the 74- by 20-foot ing the smaller room, which was used before structure at the end of the row as a sizeable 1676 as an antechamber for those awaiting dwelling that exhibited the latest fashion in business before the General Court and after architectural design in colonial Virginia. Here 1685 as the office of the secretary of the are two very large heated rooms on the ground colony. floor divided by a center passage. A front porch acted as an entry into the passage with a very Yet Yonge did not take into consideration the large tower in the rear that accommodated a possibility that there could have been another staircase to the second floor. Beyond the partition wall to the east of the one he discov- slightly unusual placement of the chimneys in ered, probably a wooden partition rather than the center of the back walls, the building a masonry one that would not have left any closely follows the plan of dwellings erected by trace in the remains of the foundation. It is just Virginia grandees in the late-seventeenth and as likely that this partition stood about ten feet early-eighteenth centuries. Its slightly larger to the east of the western masonry wall. It size, center passage, and uniformity set it apart would have created a wide center passage from Bacon’s Castle. Arlington and Green through the building. The south end of the Spring (as originally built) had more square partition would have terminated, like the footage. The scale and symmetry of House 5 western partition, exactly even with the east suggests a late seventeenth-century date and wall of the entrance porch. The north end of the its plan can be interpreted equally as domestic, eastern partition would have also had the same the home of an important individual who lived relationship along the north wall with the north at the end of a row of sizable double-pile addition as the western partition. It would have houses. terminated a couple of feet inside from the place where the north wing joined the north perimeter wall. Perhaps more telling is the SUMMARY placement of the larger fireplaces located on the north wall. In the western room it is cen- Over the past century, Structure 144 has been tered directly between the party wall with subjected to a number of archaeological House 4 and the internal masonry wall. In the investigations. In the early twentieth century eastern room, it now appears to be off center, Colonel Samuel Yonge put forward an argu- shifted several feet to the east. However, if a ment based on the scant documentary evi- wood partition were located in the place dence associated with the statehouse at mentioned above, then it would be exactly Jamestown that the easternmost unit (House 5) centered in the now shorter eastern room in was the place where momentous public events the same relationship as the western chimney. occurred. The 74-foot long structure at the With this eastern partition, both the western eastern end of LSG was the new statehouse built and eastern rooms would have the same in the mid 1660s. It burned during Bacon’s internal dimensions of thirty feet, making Rebellion in 1676 and was rebuilt by Philip neither one larger than the other and calling Ludwell I in 1685. It burned again a second

Chapter 1 1-13 time in 1698, setting in motion the events that led to the building of a new capitol in Williamsburg the following year.

Excavations of House 5 in the 1950s took Yonge’s hypothesis as axiomatic and destroyed much of the stratigraphic evidence that may have survived to prove his case. Several new test units and the re-opening up of the area excavated in the 1950s by the Jamestown Rediscovery team in 2000 and 2001 provided some new evidence that clarified the history of the development of Structure 144, but did not go far enough to substantiate or disprove Yonge’s theory. This new work called into question some conclusions reached a century ago. It also discovered that there are several areas (particularly in Houses 3 and 4) that have not been touched by previous excavations, which may promise to answer some questions raised in this report.

It is equally plausible that LSG could have an entirely different history from the one that Yonge surmised in 1904, one that needs to be explored fully before any interpretation is prepared for the 2007 anniversary. The plan of House 5 does not necessarily fit the description of the statehouse. Its scale and plan with a center passage suggest a building of a very late- seventeenth century date. Perhaps it was the home of Robert Beverley, one of Virginia’s earliest historians, who built a house in the vicinity in the 1690s. As with so many other buildings that are noted in the documents, his house has not been positively identified on the ground. After more than a century of examination, much of the architectural history of Jamestown still remains to be recovered.

Chapter 1 1-14 ENDNOTES

1Samuel H. Yonge, “The Site of Old ‘James Towne,’ physical evidence. In Yonge’s plan, one would have 1607-1698,” Virginia Magazine of History and entered the building through the front porch Biography, XII, (July 1904), pp. 46-53; (October tower and would have been immediately in the 1904), pp.113-124. back of the courtroom. There would be no court- 2See Appendix 1A, Froehling & Robertson, Inc., room door to pass by on the way to the staircase in “Ludwell Statehouses, Jamestown,Virginia,” the back tower. For the description of these events March 2001. see, “The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia, in the Years 1675 & 3Calendar of State Papers, America and West 1676,” in Tracts and other Papers, Relating Princi- Indies, 5, #975, Public Records Office, London. pally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress in the 4 John L. Cotter, Archaeological Excavations at Colonies in North America, ed. by Peter Force nd Jamestown, Virginia, 2 ed. (Archaeological (reprint, Gloucester, Ma: Peter Smith, 1963), I, Society of Virginia, 1994), p. 26. pp.12-13. 5See Appendix 1-B, Susan Buck, “Cross-Section Microscopy Report: Jamestown Brick and Plaster Samples, Structure 144, Jamestown, Virginia,” August 5, 2002, p. 16. 6Communication from Jamie May to Carl Lounsbury, August 7, 2002. 7Plaster sampled from House 3 indicates that at least one of the spaces had three generations of limewash. Ibid. 8There is little evidence in the slim portfolio of documentary sources to suggest that the statehouse had a passageway on the ground or second floor. For example, trouble arose over people eavesdropping at the lower end of the Burgesses’ room on the second floor pretending to wait for an audience with the secretary of the colony in his small room over the front entrance porch. Perhaps more telling is the fact that in the dispute over where to place the secretary of the colony’s office that erupted in 1685, it is clear that there is no passage. In taking up the defense of the secretary from having to move from the upper floor to the ground-floor room opposite the courtroom, the governor observed that if the office moved to the lower floor, those who had business in the General Court would have been obliged to wait outdoors. If there were a ten-foot-wide passage between the office and the courtroom, then this would not have been an issue. H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. (Rich- mond: Virginia State Library, 1918), pp. 65-66, 86, 90-91. There is one good piece of documentary evidence to argue that the ground floor was divided by a center passage if House 5 was the statehouse. In the disturbances of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, a member of the House of Burgess mentions walking past the General Courtroom door on his way up to the room on the second floor where the group met. If, as Yonge speculated, the ground floor of House 5 consisted of only a large room in the east (the General Courtroom) and a smaller room divided by the brick partition on the west, then it is difficult to reconcile this document with the

Chapter 1 1-15 APPENDIX 1-A Mortar Analysis of Structure 144

JAMES CRENSHAW Chapter 1 LUDWELL STATEHOUSES Jamestown, Virginia

Made for The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Williamsburg, Virginia

Made by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. F & R No. B60-543 March 2001

Chapter 1

Richmond Branch Office 3015 Dumbarton Road, Richmond, Virginia 23228 (804) 264-2701 Fax (804) 264-7862 July 29, 2003

CONTROL NO: 60-00-77222 RECORD NO.: B-60-543

PETROGRAPHIC REPORT OF HARDENED MORTAR

CLIENT: Mr. Carl Lounsbury The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation P.O. Box 1776 Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-1776

PROJECT: Ludwell Statehouses Jamestown, Virginia

TEST METHOD: ASTM C 856 - 88 ASTM C 1324 - 96 ( partial)

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) Richmond is pleased to submit the results of the visual and petrographic examination performed on 33 mortar samples. Mr. Willie Graham of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation submitted the samples for examination on September 21, 2000. The mortar samples were taken from several structures located in historical Jamestown. The structures were a group of houses named House 1, House 2, House 3, House 4 and the Statehouse. The original construction was during the time period of about 1640 to 1650. The purpose of the examination was to classify each individual sample and compare specific groups of samples for compatibility as it relates to time periods of construction.

The petrographic examination was performed in accordance with ASTM C 1324-96 Examination and Analysis of Hardened Masonry Mortar and ASTM C 856-88 Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, Table 2 (Outline for Examination with Stereomicroscope). The sand to cement / lime ratio was determined using the dilute Hydrochloric acid separation method.

EXAMINATION

Upon receipt of the samples to the laboratory, each was placed into the oven and dried. To analyze the samples for composition, a portion of each of the 33 mortar samples weighing approximately 35 - 45 grams were selected and used for the determination of sand / cement ratio using the dilute hydrochloric acid separation method.

July 29, 2003

After the acid separation was completed, the non-reactive sand portion of the mortar was saved and used for the particle size analysis, microscopic evaluation to determine the mineral constituents of each sample, physical properties, surface features and particle morphology of the sand grains. Microscopic examination using the stereomicroscope (60x power) before the acid separation showed that carbonate constituents in the form of large shell fragments were included in the mortar. The shell fragments generally measured approximately ½ inch to 0.187 inches (#4 sieve) in size.

The sand portion of the mortar was mainly composed of quartz. The percentage of quartz ranged from 80 to 95 percent in most samples. Particle sizes were generally in the range of 1.19 millimeters to .074 millimeters, sieve sizes #16 to #200, respectively. Other minor constituents such as hornblende, sandstone clusters (particles made of cemented fine sand grains and a clay binder), remnants of organic plant or grass roots, weathered granite and feldspar fragments and other miscellaneous particles were also observed. Particle form was equidimensional and compact. The quartz grains were predominately clear color however particles showing various other colors were noted. The surface texture of the quartz particles was generally smooth with a glassy appearance.

The binder for the mortar samples was lime putty or soft paste. Chunks of putty were visible throughout the mortar samples. Generally, the chunks had diameters of approximately 2 to 3 millimeters. The lime for the putty was made from burning coastal shells (oyster and mollusk) which were abundant in the area to obtain the lime. Microscopic observations show that wood cinders from the fire were included as a minor constituent of the mortar. Also, the ash created from the fire added some hydraulic properties to the mortar. These constituents were mixed in varying proportions with just enough water to produce a soft and workable mortar. Over a period of time, the lime carbonates by reacting with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to become harder and more durable. After the sand particle size analysis was completed, the -200 sieve material (clay, silt and ash particles) were displayed in glass vials to facilitate color comparisons between samples. Although the colors of some samples matched rather closely in some comparisons, the range of colors were variable and provided only limited support in determining if one sample or group of samples were compatible to one another.

Included in the report are individual descriptions of each mortar sample. The description includes information on the composition, particle form and surface features of the constituents. Information such as the visual appearance of the mortar as received and its relative hardness were noted.

Graphs of the particle size distribution of the mortar sand in each sample have been provided with this report to facilitate comparisons of one sample to another. In addition, a chart is provided listing the sand to lime ratio of each sample. The sand to lime ratio did not include the coarse shell pieces, which were removed from the samples because they were considered as coarse aggregate and did not contribute to the lime putty paste used as the mortar binder.

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. F&R_Examination.doc Page 2 of 5 July 29, 2003

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Ludwell Statehouses Sand : Lime Ratio:

Sample Number Ratio Sand : Lime 1 0.9 : 1 2 1.7 : 1 3 1.3 : 1 4 1.4 : 1 5 1.3 : 1 6 1.2 : 1 7 1.7 : 1 8 1.4 : 1 9 1.6 : 1 10 2.1 : 1 11 2.7 : 1 12 2.0 : 1 13 1.8 : 1 14 1.3 : 1 15 1.5 : 1 16 1.9 : 1 17 1.7 : 1 18 1.5 : 1 19 Soil Sample 20 2.3 : 1 21 1.7 : 1 22 2.0 : 1 23 3.1 : 1 24 1.9 : 1 25 2.5 : 1 26 2.1 : 1 27 1.9 : 1 28 1.6 : 1 29 1.9 : 1 30 1.9 : 1 31 1.4 : 1 32 2.8 : 1 33 2.0 : 1

Calculations to convert from weight to volume were based on bag weights of 80 pounds for the sand and 65 pounds for the lime.

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. F&R_Examination.doc Page 3 of 5 July 29, 2003

CONCLUSIONS

1. Information concerning mortar hardness on the outside of the structure verses the inside of the buildings was confirmed after comparing sand/lime ratios calculated for the different structures. Data show that there was no difference in the amount of lime used in the mortar, which influences the hardness of the mortar for houses No. 1 and No. 2. However, data show that more lime was used for the outside mortar construction of houses No. 3, No. 4 and the Statehouse. 2. Investigation of data relating to the compatibility of samples concerning construction on the back additions of Houses No. 3 and No. 4 with the front portions of the same houses showed evidence that the construction was compatible. Mortar samples No. 10, 11, and 15 were examined representing the front of the houses and samples No. 12,13,14,16 and 20 were examined from the back of the houses. Mineral constituents and particle size distribution were very similar along with sand/lime ratios, giving credence to the fact that construction was during the same period of time. 3. Mortar samples No. 1 – 8 representing first period construction showed very good compatibility when compared one to another. Mortar samples No. 4, 6 and 7 were examined closely and confirmed the compatibility of the construction period. 4. Second period construction represented by mortar samples No. 9, 10, 12 – 17, 20 – 22, 24 and 26 also showed good compatibility when compared to one another. Of that group, samples 13 and 14 were of different colors but were compatible where constituents and particle size distribution are concerned. Also, of that group, samples No. 21 and 22 were very similar. 5. The compatibility of samples No. 11 and No. 23 was determined to be very good. Both samples have similar compositions, particle size distributions and sand/lime ratios. Each represent second period construction. 6. Samples No. 25, 27 and 28, 29 – 33 were determined to be non-compatible. Particle size distribution, sand/lime ratios and compositions were different. Of that group, samples No. 28 thru No.32 displayed the greatest difference. 7. A general recipe for duplicating the mortar samples would include a lime and sand mixture in the form of a soft workable paste or putty mixed to the proportions determined from the sand/lime ratios provided in this report with some coarse shell fragments. For example, using sample No. 2, the mixture would be 1.7 parts fine sand to 1 part lime paste with approximately .3 parts coarse shell fragments.

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. F&R_Examination.doc Page 4 of 5 July 29, 2003

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

Respectfully Submitted, FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

James L. Crenshaw, Jr. Ross Deaver, P.E. Staff Geologist Manager

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. F&R_Examination.doc Page 5 of 5

Mortar Descriptions:

Trench #5014 Sample #1:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2.0 percent brick pieces, iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was buff brown. Sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample #2:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 7.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, granitic rock fragments (pink color) and black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample #3:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench #5040

Sample #4:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), brick fragments, iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and black color cinders derived from the burning process. Traces of organic roots were observed. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample #5:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5008:

Sample #6:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5007:

Sample #7:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock and brick fragments and, black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample #8:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock and brick fragments and, black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard and adhered well with the brick. The overall mortar color was light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 9:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was medium brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench #5015:

Sample # 10:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was medium brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 11:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 6.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was medium brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench #5019:

Sample # 12:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was medium brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 13:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was medium brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed.

Sample # 14:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 10 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 6.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 5.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard. The overall mortar color was medium brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed.

Trench 5016: Sample # 15:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 20.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 3.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed.

Trench 5010:

Sample # 16:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 3.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color brick and granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed

Sample # 17:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 3.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color brick and granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed.

Trench 5018:

Sample # 18:

1. Composition: 80 – 85 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 3.0 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color brick and granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was hard. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. Traces of fibrous material were observed.

Trench 5006:

Sample # 19: Soil Sample

Sample # 20:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5012:

Sample # 21:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 3 - 5 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and remnants of burned wood fragments. (3-10 mm) 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample. The percentage of cinders is higher in this sample than the others.

Sample # 22:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 23:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 12.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5001:

Sample # 24:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5013:

Sample # 25:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 26:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5005:

Sample # 27:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 28:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 29:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 2 - 3 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5003:

Sample # 30:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 1 - 2 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5000:

Sample # 31:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 1 - 2 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was light brown. The sand color is light brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Trench 5020:

Sample # 32:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 10.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 1 - 2 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Sample # 33:

1. Composition: 85 – 90 % quartz, particle shape is sub-rounded to angular; particle colors are clear, milky white and rose. Other constituents include approximately 5-8 percent unburned shell fragments with diameters in the range of 3.0 to 15.0 millimeters. The shell fragments are angular shape and display various shades of gray color. Also included are approximately 1 - 2 percent hornblende particles (black color, compact), iron-clay concretions, pink color granitic rock fragments and traces of black color cinders derived from the burning process. 2. Particle form: generally compact and dense 3. Sphericity: intermediate – sub-equant 4. Surface features: The quartz displays a slightly frosted surface texture. The remaining particles have a rough and hackly surface texture, which enhances the bond with the lime putty. Note: This mortar was soft. The overall mortar color was brown. The sand color is brown. Chunks of lime putty were observed in the mortar sample.

Ludwell Statehouse Sample #1 120

100 99.3 100

91.5

45.8 Percent Passing (%) 40

25.9 20 14.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 2 120

100 99.5 100

91.6

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 40.5

22.8 20 14.7

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 3

100 99.7 100

89.4

60 Percent Passing(%) 40

12.6 6.7 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 4 120

100 99.6 100

91.5

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 40

21.9 20 13.3

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 5

100 99.6 100 93.8

53.2 Percent Passing(%) 40 35.3

23.1 20

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 6

100 99.5 100

89.8

60 Percent Passing(%) 40

31.5

20 13.8

5.9 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 7 120

100 99.3 100

91.3

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 35.5

20 14.4 8.8

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 8

100 99.5 100

92.6

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 37.3

20 17.5

10.0

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 9

100 99.8 100 95.3

48 Percent Passing(%) 40

26.5 20 15.8

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 10 120

100 99.9 100 95.4

51.5 Percent Passing(%) 40

31.3

20 19.9

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 11 120

100 99.6 100

92.5

47.2 Percent Passing(%) 40

30.7

21.8 20

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 12

100 99.8 100 95.9

49.2 Percent Passing(%) 40

27.9

20 16.7

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 13

100 99.9 100 95.6

45.6 Percent Passing(%) 40

24.6 20 14.0

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 14

100 100 100

92.9

60 Percent Passing(%) 41.7 40

20 20.7

12.3

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 15 120

100 99.5 100

89.1

Percent Passing(%) 44.4 40

24.7 20 14.6

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 16

100 100 100 95.5

48.4 Percent Passing(%) 40

28.8

20 18.4

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 17

100 100 100 95

Percent Passing(%) 41.9 40

20 21.5 13.6

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 18

100 99.8 100 93.6

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 33.9

11.2 5.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 19

100 99.3 100

92.2

72.7

46.2 Percent Passing(%) 40

23.8 20

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 20

100 99.8 100 93.8

52.4 Percent Passing(%) 40

30.5

20 18.4

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 21

100 100 100 95.9

Percent Passing(%) 42.1 40

20 18.8

9.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 22

100 99.9 100 95.4

Percent Passing(%) 42.3 40

20 19.6

10.7

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 23 120

100 99.5 100

91.6

53.2 Percent Passing(%) 40

32.2

20 20.5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 24

120

100 99.9 100 95.5

Percent Passing(%) 42 40

20 19.9

12.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 25

100 99.8 100 93.8

52.4 Percent Passing(%) 40

30.5

20 18.4

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 26 120

100 99.9 100 94.1

60 Percent Passing(%) 40 35.3

20 15.2 9.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 27 120

100 99.5 100

89.1

Percent Passing(%) 44.4 40

24.7 20 14.6

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 28

100 99.4 100

86.9

Percent Passing(%) 44.7 40

26.3 20 15.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 29

100 99.6 100

91.4

45.9 Percent Passing(%) 40

23.3 20

13.2

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 30

100 99.5 100

85.7 80

Percent Passing(%) 42.5 40

24.7 20 14.3

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 31

100 99.8 100 94.1

60 56.4 Percent Passing(%) 40

32.6

20 19.6

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) Ludwell Statehouse Sample 32 120

100 99.8 100 94

49.1 Percent Passing(%) 40

26.4 20 15.3

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm) 120 Ludwell Statehouse Sample 33

100 100 100 95.4

48 Percent Passing(%) 40

26.5 20 15.8

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sieve Size (mm)

APPENDIX 1-B Analysis of Paint from Mortar Sample, Structure 144

MARK KUTNEY Chapter 1 Email “Mortar Sample,” Mark Kutney to Carl Email “ Jamestown house 5 mortar sample,” Mark Lounsbury, 15 April 2002 Kutney to Carl Lounsbury, 5 April 2002

From: Kutney, Mark From: Kutney, Mark Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:30 PM Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:24 AM To: Lounsbury, Carl To: Lounsbury, Carl Subject: Mortar sample Subject: RE: Jamestown house 5 mortar sample Carl, I think it means there definitely was a coating on the It appears that the pigment was applied while the surface. The pigment appears to be partly in the mortar still wet. So far the layer of material above the coating and partly in the upper portion of the mortar. surface of the mortar, and below the surface of the dirt The main question I am working on now is was this layer, does not stain positive for carbohydrates, coating a fortified lime wash containing pigment. protein or oil. It could be a lime (whitewash) based Additives were typically added to whitewash when coating, although it doesn’t soak up stain like the used for exterior surfaces. These additives run the mortar does porous). I will keep trying. I assume this gamut, from sugar to oil to glue size, hence the reason is a sample taken from a pit, and therefore the source for staining to test for carbohydrates, oils or protein. is no longer accessible (true?). If the opportunity is A high pH would also indicate a predominantly lime- still available, I would like to look at the source. based coating.

Another alternative would be an oil-based coating. Mark Additional staining and micro chemical testing should sort this out.

Email “Plaster,” Mark Kutney to Carl Lounsbury, 20 Mark Nov. 2001

From: Kutney, Mark Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:48 Email “ Jamestown house 5 mortar sample,” Mark PM Kutney to Carl Lounsbury, 4 April 2002 To: Lounsbury, Carl Subject: Plaster From: Kutney, Mark Carl, Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:02 PM To: Lounsbury, Carl As per the sample from Jamestown you gave me today Subject: Jamestown house 5 mortar sample from house 5, rearwell, struck joint, just west of east chimney (11-09-01). There is a coating on top of the Carl, mortar. It appears to be a lightly pigmented. Under 50x magnification I could see red and black pigment I have some great images of what appears to be a associated with this coating, probably red ocher and pigmented coating on the mortar. So far I have not carbon black. I cleaned off the surface of this coating gotten a positive reaction for carbohydrates, proteins on a small fragment and revealed a pink to light red or lipids (oil) in the medium, but there are other color. One has to be careful about making assump- stains for oils and proteins that I am going to try. I am tions at this point since there is plenty of red floating going to try to continue the staining on Friday. See around from the brick. I am going to proceed with attached photo. making a cross-section and will email you as soon as I know something further. Mark Mark Kutney

Appendix 1-B 1-B-2 Photomicrograph attached to email “ Jamestown house 5 mortar sample,” Mark Kutney to Carl Lounsbury, 4 April 2002 showing what appear to be a pigmented coating on the mortar.

Appendix 1-B 1-B-3 APPENDIX 1-C Jamestown Brick and Plaster Samples, Structure 144

SUSAN BUCK Chapter 1

APPENDIX 1-D Recommendations for Additional Research

Chapter 1 APPENDIX 1-D Recommendations for Additional Research

he excavations at Structure 144 in to the west has not been disturbed since being Jamestown during 2000 and 2001 destroyed by fire. Captured within this strati- Tprovided much useful information graphic record may be enough evidence to concerning the architectural development of firmly date the building’s final destruction. the rowhouse that stood on a ridge west of the Moreover, this excavation should help deter- church. However, many issues concerning the mine the layout and finishes for Houses 3 and 4 chronological history of the site, the relation- just before their demise. ship of different units to one another, the function of the different houses, and their finish A 1694 patent granting to Philip Ludwell land remain unanswered. that contained his three ruinous houses between the statehouse and country house seems Despite destruction of much archaeological to fit this area of Jamestown Island. Assuming evidence in the 1950s, recent investigations the Ludwell patent refers to this complex, then reveal that parts of the site are stratigraphically Houses 2, 3, and 4 were in ruins in the early undisturbed. These areas should be explored in 1690s, perhaps standing vacant since being future archaeological research. Only then will torched during Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. The we know if Colonel Yonge was correct in three houses stood between House 1 (the surmising in 1904 that Structure 144 was the country house) on the west and House 5 (the home of the only purpose-built statehouse in statehouse) on the east. If ruinous in 1694, then Jamestown. New investigations have the Houses 3 and 4 must have been altered and potential to reveal a substantially different repaired between that time and 1698 when the history of the site and will certainly at the least statehouse burned along with the adjoining provide a more refined understanding of the houses. Given scaffold holes in the eastern structure. Efforts should be made to answer room of House 2, it is possible that this building questions that have vexed historians about the was never repaired after 1676. If Houses 3 and development of this property and the various 4 were destroyed in the fire that consumed the and changing uses of its buildings before statehouse, then there should be nothing in the interpretative planning for 2007 proceeds too remains that postdates 1698. If, on the other far. hand, the artifactual evidence indicates otherwise, it would call into question the public To this end we recommend the following function of House 5 and the documentary additional archaeological work be undertaken assumptions made in this report. Trapped on the site: below this last destruction layer may be earlier ones that would shed light on the function and 1. Complete excavation of Houses 3 and 4 configuration of the two houses before they where there is good stratigraphy in order to were altered to receive gable-end chimneys establish a chronological record of the con- and porch towers. struction and destruction of these two houses and their neighbors. 2. Excavate the south side of House 5 in order to locate a possible fence line. This effort is of most importance, for these two houses hold the greatest potential for revealing Documentary evidence indicates that the front the history of building at Structure 144. The of the statehouse was enclosed with a post and remains of charred floorboards and sleepers rail fence. On December 9, 1685, Colonel Philip spaced on two-foot centers survive intact in the Ludwell agreed to erect a fence “with railes and easternmost room of House 4. Although the banisters of Loucst & Cedar laid double in Oyle, 1950s excavations extended several feet into and as close as may be ye forepart of ye state this room, a large section of the house further Appendix 1-D 1-D-2 house of convenient height and att convenient candidates to fit this history. However, are distance from ye house.”1 Six years later these the buildings that burned with the state- Ludwell’s fence was ruinous. On May 20, 1691 house in 1698? Was the prison located in one of the governor’s council sought someone to the houses in the row next to the statehouse, “repair ye Genll Court house, and to rail it in to perhaps House 3, or did it stand apart in some keep it from those indecencies it is now ex- other location that has yet to be discovered? posed.”2 Finding evidence of these fence lines, while not proving the function of House 5 as the These excavations should include the area statehouse, would provide additional evidence immediately around the perimeter of the in its favor. foundations to complete the search for scaffolding and fences. After these features have 3. Excavate within the additions to Houses 3 been dug and plotted, they could help identify and 4 (Houses 3A and 4A). construction sequences and the location of windows and doorways. Limited testing in this area by Jamestown Rediscovery has proved useful in demonstrat- 5. Archaeology should cast a wider net, ing their relationship to the adjoining units. looking for missing elements of the town in the This work has also shown that at least portions vicinity of LSG. of these spaces were plastered—hopefully a full excavation will bring to light more information Documentary evidence suggests that there about the level of finish in these spaces, per- were several buildings in the vicinity of Struc- haps something about how they were divided, ture 144. The three brick houses erected by and something of room usage. Were they William Berkeley in the 1650s, which once originally simply additions to the front houses, housed temporary sessions of the House of or were they separate houses in their own Burgesses, are probably located somewhere in right? Potentially scaffold holes for Houses 3 this region. If House 5 is the statehouse, then and 4 can be found within these spaces. Robert Beverley’s 1694 dwelling is also situated somewhere just to the east of Structure 144. 4. Survey the remainder of the environs Efforts should be made to locate more of the around the LSG complex. main road that was located east of the property so that it can be used as a landmark and in turn Knowing the context in which a building is set is help to tighten the documentary portrait of the what our generation of scholars prides itself LSG site. All of these elements need to be found on—how did LSG relate to the land? Did other if the full story of Structure 144 and its immedi- fences come off this building and enclose ate neighbors are to be interpreted to the outdoor areas that might help inform how public. spaces were used and how people interacted with each other? How did Structure 144 relate to other buildings and spaces in Jamestown? Where were the pathways, work areas, formal areas, gardens, and secondary buildings that were in close proximity to this complex?

Of particular interest is the search for the prison that was destroyed with the statehouse in the fire of October 1698. On October 31, Governor Edmund Andros reported to the Council of Trade and Plantations that the fire that destroyed the statehouse “broke out in a house adjoining the State-house, which in a very short time was wholly burnt, and also the prison.”3 Where was the prison that burned with the statehouse? Houses 3 and 4 are the only adjoining or neighboring buildings that have been discovered so far and are likely

Appendix 1-D 1-D-3 ENDNOTES

1 H. R. McIlwaine ed., Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia 3 vols. (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1918) I, p. 97, December 10, 1685. 2 Ibid, p. 151, May 20, 1691. 3 Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 16, #946, Public Records Office, London.

Appendix 1-D 1-D-4 CHAPTER 2 Seventeenth-Century Precendents in Brick Construction in England and Virginia

INTRODUCTION amount of speculation, a less considered approach to the selection of period details The Chronological Development and leads invariably to an implausible association Regional Patterns of Brickwork of design elements.

ike most aspects of architecture, the Along with temporal changes, regional build- design and execution of brickwork ing practices played an important part in Lmanifested a pattern of chronological shaping seventeenth-century brick traditions. development and regional variation. This Historians of post-medieval English buildings study of English brickwork spans the seven- stress the importance of regionalism in shaping teenth century, but sixteenth-century precedents and early-eighteenth century buildings Beaumont Hall (ca. 1670), Beaumont cum Moze, Essex, England, with its many shaped gables. were included to highlight the origins of this Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. tradition and its subsequent maturation. It is not a useful exercise to select period design elements and apply them to a hypothetical reconstruction without first ascertaining whether such details could have existed in the place and time being re-created, much less without ensuring they could have related to other elements of the design. English brick buildings from the time of Jamestown statehouse’s destruction in 1698 were markedly different from those erected at the beginning of English settlement in Virginia in 1607. From bonding patterns to a new decorative aesthetic based on classical design, brick building practices changed dramatically over the course of the century. Because of these changes, understanding the context of a particular feature is critical. Although all reconstruc- tions are based on a certain

Chapter 2 2-1 details that could be found across the country. This is not to say that regionalism disappeared altogether, but national trends increasingly dominated the manner in which buildings were designed and finished and served to unify the architectural landscape from the southeast to the pastoral uplands of the northwest. Al- though there were some distinctive masonry peculiarities, on the whole seventeenth- century brickwork displayed fewer regional variations than other materials. In part this is a result of its being a relatively new material in many regions of the country at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Brick building flourished in East Anglia, an area that had more than its share of early brick structures in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries because of the absence of building stone. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, brick structures in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridgeshire ranged from modest dwellings to imposing gentry houses and churches.

Survey Material and Methods

In April 2001, architectural historians Edward Chappell, Cary Carson, Carl Lounsbury, and Detail of decorative corbelling supporting a straight Willie Graham selected for study a group of parapet on the Little Thurlow Almshouse (1618), brick buildings in East Anglia, a region north- Suffolk England. Photograph by Willie Graham, east of London that encompassed Essex, 2001. Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Norfolk. They particularly sought out structures with known the country’s architecture, where certain construction dates, ones that had either been patterns in framing, plan, and decorative determined previously by documentary details flourished in discrete areas with limited research or those with dates incorporated in geographic range. Some timber framing their façades. To this end The Buildings of practices appear only in the southeast for England series by Nicholas Pevsner was used example, while many areas developed distinc- as a guide for structures that fitted these tive patterns of decorative exterior framing. criteria. In some cases, so-called “known” Although wood was the predominant building dates turned out to be false and new dates have material in the sixteenth century, the availabil- been assigned for their construction. In all, ity of stone in some places led to the growing thirty-three buildings were studied, and of use of that durable material. Conversely, in these, twenty-three have solid construction areas such as East Anglia where there was little dates. building stone, brick became a viable alternative material. To this list has been added fifty-two buildings previously recorded from across England to At the beginning of the seventeenth century round out the survey and to help distinguish regional practices exemplified the differences regional characteristics. Also assembled is a between one part of England and another. By list of brick buildings and foundations of the end of the century, though, regional structures built in the Chesapeake in the practices diminished in architectural design seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries to and were replaced by classical forms and characterize this region. A consistent record

Chapter 2 2-2 was developed for each site that documented the characteristics of the manufactured bricks, the form of common architectural elements, the general quality of construction, and the extent of decorative finishes applied to the various elements of the brickwork. The findings are included in appendices with sites listed in chronological order and separating the English survey from that of the Chesapeake.

The accompanying report attempts to dissect various aspects of brick construction and to ascertain the chronological implications of the survey. By comparing this data to what has been learned about brick building practices in the Chesapeake, an attempt was made to distinguish between local variation and national trends in English and colonial brick making and decorative practices. By applying patterns found in this fieldwork and from material recovered from Jamestown and other Virginia masonry buildings, façades for Struc- ture 144 were recreated. However, until the site is more fully excavated, these conclusions are based on what is known at present. Readers should be acutely aware that further investigations will change many of these hypotheses, providing a much better chronology for the Above: Cottered Almshouse (ca. 1700), Hertfordshire, site, and revealing new evidence for the England. Note the use of all-glazed header Flemish bond and architectural details. the decorative glazing pattern in the arches, cornice and stringcourse. Photograph by Willie Graham, 1994. Below: The resulting survey offers a framework for reconstructed façade of Arlington (ca. 1676), Northampton understanding the parameters of bonding, County, Virginia. Designed by Cary Carson; model built by Terry Ammons, 1999. decoration, and detailing in the long-demolished brick row of buildings at Jamestown commonly known as the Ludwell Statehouse Group (Struc- ture 144). Archaeological evidence and a few surviving early structures in Virginia suggest that colonial builders followed general trends in brick making and brick laying that were fashionable in Great Britain. Shaped gables, carved work, bonding patterns, mortar joint profiles, and other features found in Virginia buildings in the mid- to late- seventeenth century

Chapter 2 2-3 repeated current English patterns. Just as the molding, deviations of about ¼” in any dimen- plans of the Jamestown row mirrored contem- sions was common from one extreme of usable porary English forms, so too did the patterning bricks in a kiln to the other. However, the of its brickwork. Obviously, the reliance upon range could be as much as ½” or more in local materials, craft skill, investment, and length and a ¼” for secondary dimensions. intended use affected the appearance of Structure 144 in such a way as to set it apart Brick lengths in the seventeenth-century from English prototypes. The framing system, samples tended to extend from 9" to 9½”, but for example, may have followed newly devel- some reached as much as 10", while others oped Chesapeake carpentry techniques. were as short as 8½”. Header dimensions fell Nonetheless, the brickwork of the long row between 4" and 4 5/8" with most averaging would not have appeared too dissimilar in 4¼”. The height of bricks could be as little as 1 detail and form from English examples that 7/8" or as much as 2¾”; 2" to 2¼” was the were investigated. The design is informed by norm. What the data show is that a general English evidence but tempered by the patterns consistency was followed in brick sizes but discernible in the emerging Chesapeake tradi- there was a lack of uniformity due as much to tion. imprecise manufacturing processes as deliberate attempts to circumvent royal dictates.

In the Chesapeake there were fewer differences BRICK DETAILS in the size of bricks across the colonial period; bricks from the early seventeenth century generally match the size of bricks used at the Brick Sizes end of the eighteenth century. The pattern seems to have been set near the outset of Brick sizes in England were standardized in the settlement and was followed for a very long sixteenth century. In 1515 Cardinal Wolsey time. Certainly into the early eighteenth used a brick that measured 9½” x 4" x 2" at century a good number of buildings could be Hampton Court. This was not significantly found that had slender proportions—extra long different from dimensions of the first regula- but short in height—and there were an occa- tion bricks enacted as part of the Brickmakers’ sional small, Dutch sized bricks used in this Charter of 1571. Statute bricks were to mea- period across the region. But the general trend sure 9" x 4½” x 2¼”. By 1622 the Tylers’ and was not an expansion from small bricks to Bricklayers’ Company was empowered to larger ones as has been suggested in earlier supervise the entire brickmaking industry to literature about the subject. The vast majority ensure greater consistency in brick quality and of regular bricks in Virginia fall within the sizes. A royal proclamation by Charles I in following range: lengths measure between 8½” 1625 and again in 1630 reaffirmed the size of and 9", widths 3 3/4" and 4 1/4", and heights 2 the 1571 statute bricks. Not until 1725 were 3/8" and 2¾”. Thus they were shorter than the sizes modified to allow for differences in place average English statute bricks, but slightly bricks (that is, common bricks used for backing taller, giving them less slender proportions. and secondary locations) and stock bricks (the commonly produced bricks of a locality Brick sizes recorded at Structure 144 in generally used for facing). Place bricks were to Jamestown were comparable to other Vir- measure 9" x 4½” x 2½”; stock bricks were ginia examples. Subtle variations in their standardized at 2" in height.1 dimensions should be replicated if these buildings are reconstructed: Surviving buildings indicate that variation in sizes caused by the process of molding and Foundations, Houses 1 and 2: 8 5/8" - 9" x firing bricks was much greater than the stat- 2½” – 2¾” x 4¼” – 4¾” utes would suggest. Bricks from all buildings Foundations, Houses 3 and 4: 8¾” – 9" x 2½” surveyed for this project were undoubtedly – 2 5/8" x 4¼” – 4½” molded, but due to clay shrinkage, tempera- Porch, Houses 3 and 4:9" x 2½” – 2¾” x 4¼” ture fluctuations from one part of a kiln to – 4½” another, and perhaps the practice of slop Foundations, House 5: 9" x 2½” x 4¼” – 4½” Chapter 2 2-4 Cottered Almshouse (ca. 1700). By the end of the seventeenth century, masons were skilled in the use of manipulating color in brick walls. Note the lighter, rubbed work around the window and the decorative placement of glazing in the wall and stringcourse. Photograph by Willie Gra- ham, 1994.

orange side, was the most common color on both sides of the Atlantic throughout the seventeenth century.

Brick color is affected by many factors, including the chemical composition of the clay, the amount of iron oxide present, the nature of the sand, and the temperature and consistency of Brick Colors heat at which the bricks are fired. Iron oxide produces red bricks. Thus, the more that is present, the darker and richer the red color. The vast majority of buildings surveyed in Magnesium oxide produces yellow bricks. If England dating from the seventeenth century limestone or chalk is present in the clay and is was made of red brick, a color that could vary finely ground (as seen in brickwork in the from a light orange if under fired, to dark Sandwich area, for example), when mixed with reddish purple when over fired, often with a iron oxide, it will produce a yellow brick. If no medium red or reddish-brown cast. Conceiv- iron oxide is present, lighter yellow bricks— ably the red color has more to do with the often referred to as white—are produced. limited geographical spread of this survey of Cambridgeshire is known for its white bricks of southeastern England and is less a result of it which those in the Merchant’s House are being the only color that could be (or was representative.2 Color, therefore, is a product desirable to be) produced in the seventeenth of what local clays could produce. Maryland century. Having said this, our first recorded and Virginia clays generate bricks, that when structure built of yellow brick is the well fired, range in color from orange, to a Merchant’s House in Swaffham Bulbeck, medium red, to a dark purplish brown. Cambridgeshire, built in the 1680s. The main body bricks are a dull, light yellowish brown Surviving bricks in the foundations of the highlighted with red headers to give its Flemish various houses of Structure 144 are a useful bond pattern distinction. In areas such as guide to the color range that should be used in Kent, yellow bricks, many of which have red their reconstruction. These bricks are in the swirls in the fired clay, are quite common and red family, filling the spectrum from orange to seem to have been used as early as the late- medium red. However, two factors should be seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries. considered when matching these colors. First, Certainly by the second quarter of the eigh- masons commonly used salmon or sammel teenth century, full-sized yellow brick became bricks (light color, under-fired bricks) in a favorite of Georgian builders (see the Thomas foundations and on the interior of walls since Sherman House of 1735 in Dedham, Essex, for these areas were considered less vulnerable to instance). Despite these variations, red brick, the weather.3 Therefore, it is important to usually tending to the medium red and lighter understand what the full color range for each

Chapter 2 2-5 building would have been and to place the lightest colors only in secondary locations. Secondly, because different clay firings are represented in Structure 144, even if the clay and sand sources were the same, the color palette represented in each phase would have varied. The effect for the row then is a range of red bricks with slight differences from one unit to another.

Painted Brickwork

Some English historians have contended that early English brickwork was Detail of painted mortar joints and brickwork at painted red to present a more uniform wall Bacon’s Castle (1665) in Surry County, Virginia. surface.4 Just how pervasive such a treatment Paint analsyis by Susan Buck revealed that the was remains uncertain, but there is enough masonry was given a red wash from the outset, documentary and surviving physical evidence before the mortar had time to cure. Photograph by to suggest that such a practice appeared in the Willie Graham, 2002. era of the Jamestown rowhouse in England and in Virginia. In England, evidence of such paint was applied to the entire exterior brick- painted brickwork survives on the interiors of work before the mortar had fully cured indicat- many late medieval and early modern-period ing that the building was coated from the buildings (although the date of the painting has outset. The wide mortar joints and variegated not always been determined through analysis). bricks were disguised beneath a uniform red Early exterior painted surfaces are less likely finish that gave the surface of the building a to survive due to weathering, but examples of superficial regularity that exceeded the best early painted walls that had been covered or workmanship of the period.6 Perhaps the deep protected have been discovered. At Badley red of the brick walls was intended to contrast Hall, Suffolk, a late Tudor-period dwelling, the with the lighter color of the lugged surrounds original exterior brick fill between the studs of the second floor and the rendered work and posts was painted with red ochre and around the front entrance (now destroyed). penciled gray at some time in the late-sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.5 After discovering paint evidence at Bacon’s Castle, masonry at House 5, Structure 144 was In seventeenth-century Virginia, painted examined where the north exterior wall brickwork has been documented at a number survives a few courses above the water table. A of sites to suggest that the practice was not sample from this area revealed that it had been unusual. It was used selectively at the Page painted like Bacon’s Castle. Red pigments were House (1662) at Middle Plantation. The bricks discovered in the mortar of the finished mortar with the initials of the owners and date of joint. A surviving cavetto window jamb brick construction, which formed a diamond-shaped from the building that had been recovered cartouche above the entrance porch, were during the 1950s excavation also had evidence painted white, while a decorative heart below of red paint on its surface. In addition, evi- them was painted red. Selective painting also dence from House 3 indicates that other appeared at Arlington, a grand, three-story sections of the row were painted as well.7 house on the Eastern Shore that dates to the 1670s, where parts of the walls were roughcast Based on the solid evidence for painted brick- other sections and rendered with crude tuck- work, both in situ and in recovered brickwork, pointed joints that had been painted. At the exterior brick walls of Structure 144 Bacon’s Castle (1665) in Surry County, red should be painted a red brick color.

Chapter 2 2-6 were generally matte in finish. It is evident that the lack of glazing on the exterior of Chignal Smealey— except in the tower—was not done simply for stylistic reasons. When the interior plaster was removed in 1894, the bare walls revealed an absence of glazing on the inside as well. Most surveyed buildings that date before the third quarter of the seventeenth century con- spicuously lacked glazing. The glazing that was present tended to be light (that is, not overly hard, black and glossy), and the few that show up were generally randomly placed in the walls. A notable College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. exception is the Porch House in The brick walls were laid between 1695 and 1697. Haddenham, Cambridgeshire (1657). Here, the Although lightly glazed bricks have been randomly wall bricks were overfired, giving them a dark dispersed throughout the walls, headers have been appearance and causing excessive distortion deliberately picked out in the cellar arches. Note that to their shape. In contrast, the grammar the water table and the course below it have been school and almshouse at Little Thurlow, Suffolk rubbed. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. (built 1614 and 1618 respectively), showed no signs of glazing. Until the end of the seventeenth century kilns were simply not produc- Glazed Bricks and Decorative ing significant numbers of darker bricks or ones with vitrified surfaces and this seemed to Glazing satisfy builders who were content with a rather

Generally, the longer a wood kiln is fired at George Wythe House, Williamsburg, Virginia. By the sustained high temperatures the denser the third quarter of the eighteenth century, Virginians bricks become and the better their structural began to prefer a more restrained appearance to quality. Additionally, hotter kilns produce their brickwork, and glazing was often eliminated more vitrified surfaces. Certainly there were from primary façade. Photograph by Willie Graham, glazed bricks available from the earliest period 1983. of our survey, but they appear to become less common by the seventeenth century. Many fine Tudor- period buildings are embellished with displays of glazed diapering. In our survey, St. Nicholas at Chignal Smealey, Essex, dating to ca. 1530 has glazed diapering in its original tower, for example. This building illustrates the pattern seen in our fieldwork for structures dating through the next century and a half. That is, very few usable glazed bricks were available from most kiln firings, and the ones that were created

Chapter 2 2-7 burning. It was not until the second quarter of the eighteenth century that many builders consciously pursued a more restrained classicism that favored little articulation in wall surfaces, including color and bonding patterns. Once monochromatic brickwork became stylish, its practice was much followed in the American colonies in the late colonial period.

Patterning of brickwork through the use of glazed headers was evident in the earliest buildings we surveyed and was characteristic of many substantial Tudor-period buildings. As noted, the Random dispersion of lightly glazed brick, College of church tower at Chignal Smealey of ca. 1530 William and Mary. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. All-glazed header Flemish bond brick gable at Tuckahoe, Goochland County, Virginia, dating to about mid century. Photograph by Willie Graham, 1998. uniform color range for walls. Perhaps the reason for glazed bricks showing up in the survey for sixteenth-century buildings is partially related to the quality of those structures, buildings that were superior relative to their neighbors when compared to the seventeenth-century structures that were investigated.

The difference in placement of the few glazed and darker bricks that were in the mix in the wings of the White Hart Inn Scole, Essex, (1655) suggests that a monochromatic façade may have been initially contemplated here. Three gabled wings off the rear façade are clearly part of the original design, but enough variation exists in their respective brickwork to suggest the order in which each was erected. The west wing was first built, and, although its masonry is the simplest, no darker bricks were used in the wall. The center and east gables were more lavishly treated (more elaborate cornices, Flemish bond walls instead of English), yet their brickwork is less uniform in color due to the occasional glazed and darker bricks that are randomly distributed. It would appear that during initial construction an attempt was made to cull out dark bricks but the effort was abandoned by the time the center and east gables were raised. Most frequently, though, the monochromatic character of seventeenth-century English brickwork was due to the lack of variation in a given kiln Chapter 2 2-8 had a diapering arrangement mid level, but it prevalent through much of southeastern stopped short of fully covering one side of the England in the last quarter of the seventeenth wall, perhaps because of a lack of enough century. In 1678 at Winnock Almshouse, vitrified bricks to continue the pattern. For the Colchester, Essex, the decorative arrangement most part, though, diapering went out of is fully realized. The town hall in Amersham, fashion by the late sixteenth century and Buckinghamshire (1682), displays a strong remained rare through the first three-quarters contrast between vitrified headers and red of the seventeenth century. stretchers in the second-floor walls above an unglazed ground-floor arcade. Other examples The use of all glazed headers in a wall appears of the period can be found at Jordans, equally rare through the first half of the seven- Buckinghamshire, at the Friends Meetinghouse teenth century. The Flemish bond pattern at (1688), Stock Cottage, Coleshill, 40-41 High Street, Wingham (1628) starts out Buckinghamshire (1692), and the new, 1693 all-glazed header, but quickly dies. Decorative façade at 72-74 Broad Street, Canterbury. Yet glazing remained problematic throughout the in some buildings, the amount of glazing is so middle of the century as we discovered many slight that it is quite possible that sections of half-hearted attempts undertaken during this all-glazed headers were simply happenstance, period. For instance, the end gable of the Black as perhaps happened at Beaumont Hall in Swan in Stratford St. Andrew, Suffolk, was laid Essex (ca. 1670). in all-glazed header Flemish bond to a height of about ten feet. The pattern changed because In England all-glazed header Flemish bond the supply of glazed bricks ran out before the brickwork flourished through the first decades wall was finished, or because it was deemed too of the eighteenth century. The Quaker Cottage expensive to keep up the pattern. At in Beccles (1715) was built with this pattern on Ravensmere (1694) in Beccles, Suffolk, though, its main façade. Light colored stretchers were glazing was plentiful. The main façade is laid between dark headers, the stretchers carefully laid with orangish/red stretchers having been coarsely rubbed before being fired alternating with dark, shiny glazed headers. On to accentuate their difference with the headers. the principal gable facing a side street, the It might be argued that this building was a bit glazing pattern continues, but the headers old fashion by this time, and, as a modest have more of a matte finish, and the body house near the much grander Ravensmere bricks tend to be more reddish. Even less house, was perhaps looking to it for design distinction between headers and stretchers is inspiration. By the 1720s and 1730s it was used on the rear façade. On the secondary becoming fashionable to manipulate brickwork gable there was such a dearth of glazed or dark in a variety of other ways—one such device headers that the upper part of the wall was left was to lay vertical bands of all-glazed header, undistinguished between headers and stretch- all-header bond with contrasting bright orange ers. As fine a building as Ravensmere is, it fenestration dressing (as at the garden façade demonstrates the limited quantity of glazed of Darsham house in Suffolk, probably dating bricks that could be produced in a given kiln, to the 1720s and certainly there by 1738/9). despite the likelihood that brickmakers used Another was to eliminate glazing altogether artificial means to force glazing in their kilns by from the body bricks and use gauged-and- this time. Ravensmere also suggests that its rubbed work combined with other architec- masons carefully divided available brick into tural elements such as pilasters and brick stacks for each wall before construction cornices, as at the Thomas Sherman House in started. Dedham, Suffolk (1735).8

By the last quarter of the century there was a In the Chesapeake kilns produced a larger more concerted effort among many builders to proportion of glazed bricks for a given burn. capitalize on the striking contrast between Bacon’s Castle and nearby St. Luke’s Church, dark, glassy, glazed headers and less reflective, Newport Parish, Isle of Wight County (ca. lighter-color stretchers. The pattern that was 1682), both have generous amounts of glazed to become so pervasive in the Chesapeake in bricks randomly distributed on their wall the early eighteenth century was certainly surfaces. The tower at the Jamestown Church

Chapter 2 2-9 has random glazed headers in the walls. How- ever, in the compass-headed window arches, the upper headers are glazed, indicating a deliberate selection of such bricks. In all of these Virginia examples, the glazing includes many that are vitrified to a dark, glossy surface, an indication that hot fires were well sustained. Perhaps the availability of large quantities of quality hardwoods to fuel kiln fires made it possible to burn much harder bricks with more glazing.

The earliest dated example of the use of all glazed headers as a decorative device in Virginia was at Fairfield (1694), a T-shaped house built by the Burwell family in Gloucester County, where glazing appeared in the foundations, walls, and massive chimney stacks. By the second decade of the eighteenth century, walls with all glazed headers became a standard decorative treatment. The devise remained popular through the third quarter of the eighteenth century.9

A small percentage of the bricks in the foundations of Structure 144 are glazed. Above grade, similar bricks would have been randomly distributed throughout the walls. Different periods of construction should be Late seventeenth-century English bond brickwork on distinguished by varying the proportion of the principal elevation of Dun Cow, Swainsthorpe. glazed to non glazed bricks evident in the Note the ruled mortar joints. walls. The degree to which glazing shows up in the foundations will help as a guide to this proportioning. The general pattern that has emerged is that the newer the construction had numerous stretchers and bats set into the phase, the more glazed bricks that are header rows, and bats and headers were often present. To assist in fine-tuning the propor- added alongside stretchers. As noted above, tion, area buildings dating to the seventeenth this sloppiness may have mattered less if the century should be surveyed as to their propor- buildings were initially painted. The walls of St. tion of glazed to un-glazed body bricks. Nicholas, Chignal Smealey are typical of this earlier style of bonding. There are several Bonding Patterns courses of Flemish bond on the west and south facades at St. Michael in Woodham Walter, English bond was the most common brick Essex (1563-4). However, they alternate with a pattern used throughout southeastern England row of stretchers, creating a hybrid bond. On in the first half of the seventeenth century. the rest of the building an irregular English Early in the century, bricklayers and their bond is the most dominant pattern. Even on clients seemed less concerned with regular large houses such as Hemingstone Hall (1625) bonding patterns than they did later on, a or the Old Grammar School at Rye, East Sussex tradition that follows earlier precedent. Those (1636)—buildings that otherwise have quite few sixteenth-century brick buildings that fine detailing—there are numerous irregulari- were examined suggest that little consider- ties with many wide joints and variant-sized ation was given to tightly laid walls with bricks used as make-up or filler units. As late as regular courses. These buildings frequently 1657, the English-bond walls of the Porch

Chapter 2 2-10 House have many unevenly shaped courses filled with numerous brickbats. English bond continued in use through the end of the century, but was increasingly limited to plinths below water tables and to secondary elevations.

In a few of these buildings, English bond was expanded to include multiple stretcher courses, ranging anywhere from two stretcher courses for every header row, to five stretcher courses. This bond may initially have simply been sloppy brickwork or evidence of scrimpiness. The church tower of St. Peter in Levington, Suffolk (1636), has one-to-two and one-to-three bond, and that at the Manor House, Rampton in Cambridgeshire (ca. 1680), has everything from one-to-one bond, to one- to-four bond on its principal façade. How- ever, at Cary’s Almshouse, Halesworth, Suffolk (1686), the multiple stretcher-course bond seems more deliberate. The front façade was regularly laid in English bond with a one-to-one ratio, while the gables were more casually erected in one-to-three to one-to-five bond. Despite these few noted occurrences of English bond expanded into multiple stretcher courses, it was an unusual seventeenth-century practice.

One-to-three bonding and its many variants appeared in America first in New England by the first decades of the eighteenth century. The side walls of the Pierce-Hichborn House in Corbelling detail at the foot of a shaped gable at Beaumont Hall. The walls and stringcourse have Boston of 1711 is the earliest recorded ex- been laid in Flemish bond. Photograph by Willie ample of one-to-three bond walls, while the Graham, 2001. slightly later MacPheadris-Warner House in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (1716), has a similar arrangement. By contrast, multiple for Virginians. No evidence has yet come to stretcher course bonds do not appear on light for multiple stretcher-course bond being secondary facades in the Delaware Valley and intentionally used in America in the seven- parts of Maryland until the middle of the teenth century.10 eighteenth century. Otterbein Church (1785) in Baltimore has Flemish-bond entrance Flemish bond was rarely used in England facades and rear walls laid in one-to-three or during the first half of the seventeenth century. one-to-five bonds. In rare instances these Brunskill and Clifton-Taylor cite the Dutch bonds were used in Virginia in the last decades House at Kew Gardens (1631) as the first of the eighteenth century in inconspicuous example of Flemish bonding in England, locations, such as the rear wall of Gadsby’s although they acknowledge the appearance of Tavern in Alexandria (1785), and the plinth of an irregular form from the late sixteenth the Isle of Wight County clerk’s office in century.11 The sample of buildings listed in our Smithfield (1799). However, it was not until inventory suggests Flemish bond was more the urban building boom of the early nine- common earlier than Brunskill and Clifton- teenth century that it became commonplace Taylor have recognized. The Kedermister

Chapter 2 2-11 Almshouses built in Langley Marish, dates from the seventeenth century—the Buckinghamshire, in 1617 and Numbers 40-14 church tower of ca. 1699—has English founda- High Street, Wingham, Kent (1628), have walls tions and walls, although the stringcourse is laid in a Flemish bond pattern. The walls of the Flemish bond. The College of William and Mary latter building have some patches of English was one of the most ambitious buildings bonding mixed into the dominant pattern of undertaken in the colony during this century, Flemish. This mixing of bonds can be seen and yet it was largely raised in English bond occasionally on buildings in the Chesapeake, (the exception, as noted earlier, being Flemish such as part of the south wall of St. Peter’s in bond in the first five to eight courses above the New Kent County (1701) where several rows of water table, and the first story of the pavil- Flemish bond just above the water table give ion).12 way to English bond that appears elsewhere. This pattern was repeated at the College of As with the English survey, the quality of the William and Mary in Williamsburg (brickwork brick laying in Tidewater Maryland and Vir- 1695-97) where five to eight rows of Flemish ginia could vary dramatically for these build- bond appear above the water table before the ings. Bacon’s Castle, for instance, has poorly bond reverts back to English in the upper laid English bond walls with problems exasper- sections of the building. ated by brick dimensions varying more than the norm and by an extensive use of bats. This In England after the mid-seventeenth century, work contrasts with the better quality of brick Flemish bond appears more frequently and is laying in much of the foundations at Structure often more regularly laid. Prominent buildings 144 at Jamestown. were erected in this pattern—at least their primary façades—but its use was still not Although English bond was more prominent in guaranteed even in the best buildings. English the seventeenth-century Chesapeake, there bond remained a standard feature in the brick were a few notable examples of Flemish bond mason’s repertoire, being used on many buildings beginning in the 1660s. The cellar buildings on primary and especially secondary walls of Structure 19 A/B at Jamestown dating facades and foundations. At the White Hart Inn to the 1660s were laid in Flemish, including the in Scole, for instance, one of the three rear interior face. Likewise, Flemish bond was used gables was raised in English bond and the other inside the cellar and exposed outside for the two in Flemish in what was one of the most walls at Arlington, (c. 1675). St. Luke’s church spectacular artisan-mannerist buildings of its tower is laid in Flemish bond from the founda- time. Buxlow Manor (1678) at Knodishall, tions up. And at the end of the century, Carvill Suffolk, has a Flemish bond front with sides laid Hall, a ca. 1695-1709 brick dwelling in Kent in English bond. As late as 1690 some of the County, Maryland, has walls in Flemish bond best brickwork was still being rendered in below and above its water table. The same English bond. With a cruciform plan and large bond appears at Fairfield (1694). Both the compass-headed windows, the ambitious rural inside cellar walls and the entire exterior of the parish church of All Saints in Farley, Wiltshire, original section were laid in Flemish bond. for example, is laid in nicely detailed English bond, and Dun Cow, a late seventeenth-cen- Bond patterns for foundations of all segments tury two-story building at Swainsthorpe, of Structure 144 are known from archaeology Norfolk, is entirely English bond except for save the north addition to Houses 1 and 2. Flemish stringcourses. However, by the 1680s Except for chimney bases that have random Flemish bond had become the dominant form patterns, the walls of each phase were laid in for most buildings of any pretension. English bond. In Houses 4 and 5 the water table survives, but nowhere are walls intact In the Chesapeake, English bond remained the above this point. For the main walls of the dominant method of laying bricks throughout early construction phases, English bond is a the seventeenth century. Most foundations near certainty. Given the preference for recovered at Jamestown for which the pattern English bond throughout Jamestown’s his- could be discerned were laid in English bond, tory, even the later sections are likely to be and the one extant, aboveground feature that laid in English above the water table.

Chapter 2 2-12 Two sections of what appears to be internal roofing tile above the ovolo, a devise often fallen walls were found in the archaeological seen connected with water tables, string debris. One is a chimney associated with the courses, and corbelling at the base of the gable second-phase west chimney in House 3; the parapets where fillets are needed. Such a detail other is a section of wall contained in House 5. has been suggested at one of the Jamestown Each needs further examination to determine sites based on archaeological excavations.13 their bond patterns. Most water table courses run straight across, but at times, if not simply interrupted by a Water Tables doorway, the course might turn down to follow the doorjamb, as was done at the wing of Littleland, Coleshill, Buckinghamshire (1687). The form of water tables is related as much to Because of their exposed position, water tables the elaboration of a building as to its date. usually are weathered so much that it is Having said this, beveled water tables are by difficult to determine whether they were cut far the most common type used in seven- and/or carved to shape, or were molded teenth-century England. Occasionally water before being fired. Furthermore, it is often tables are stepped and at other times they are difficult to ascertain if they were rubbed. By shaped, like the ovolo course that is molded to the late seventeenth-century, the water table profile (instead of carved) at the Whittingham may have in many cases been rubbed, but Hall outbuilding in Fressingfield, Suffolk none of the ones observed were gauged and (1653). Here, a fillet is created by laying a flat laid with tight joints, as was common with stringcourses of this period.

A variety of water table profiles can be found in seventeenth-century Chesapeake buildings. Stepped ones are the most representative. It was used in the easternmost unit at Structure 144 (House 5) and was also the type employed at Bacon’s Castle, St. Luke’s, and Carvill Hall. A rare shaped example was employed at the Jamestown church tower (ca. 1690) that has a water table made of a carved ovolo without a fillet. The double water tables at St. Luke’s Church, Isle of Wight County, consist of beveled stretchers. Our only recognized rubbed water table on either side of the Atlantic is the one at the College of William and Mary that uses a beveled form. The row immediately below it was also rubbed.

Evidence for stepped water tables survives on the north wall of Houses 4 and 5. In both cases the course is laid as headers along the main wall. The water table also survives on the western chimney base of House 5. It extends across the back, north face of the chimney, but not the sides. In this case, the bricks are laid as stretchers. Note that grade rose slowly towards the east as it approached House 5, the most distant unit from the water. With the water table at the same height for House 4 Section through the water table at the Jamestown and 5, that at House 5 was likely nearly at church tower (ca. 1690), Virginia. Drawing by Willie grade, and that on its chimney undoubtedly Graham. below topsoil level. Since early Virginia

Chapter 2 2-13 examples favor stepped profiles, and since House 5 was likely the most elaborate of the row and it simply had a stepped water table, it would seem appropriate to use a stepped profile everywhere on Structure 144. Walls of the north additions to Houses 3 and 4 are generally as wide as foundations of the main blocks and would therefore likely have had water tables as well.

Stringcourses

Stringcourses, or what Americans often call belt courses, serve no functional purpose other than to provide a visual horizontal division between floor levels in a multistoried Above: detail, front façade of Ravensmere (1694), building. Stringcourses project from the Beccles, Suffolk, England. This finely crafted adjacent wall surface anywhere from an inch to stringcoure has a molded top and bottom course, is several inches and can be very elaborately made of precisely gauged-and-rubbed brick, and stops short of the corners. Note also the use of shaped in more pretentious buildings. They carefully chosen orange stretchers and contrasting were generally used throughout the seven- black, glazed headers arranged in a Flemish bond teenth century and gradually disappear from pattern for the wall. Photograph by Willie Graham, fashion sometime in the eighteenth century in 2001. Below: Molded and stuccoed stringcourse at English design. Most seventeenth-century Bacon’s Castle in Virginia. Photograph by Willie brick buildings of more than one floor have Graham, 2001. stringcourses across their fronts, and often they were continuous around the gable ends. Some stringcourses return short of the corners. This often happens when combined with quoins, which precluded them from running the full length of a given façade. On a number of buildings, the string turns up and over an entrance or breaks when a cartouche projects from the central façade, as is the case at the Grammar School in Little Thurlow, Suffolk, where it forms a frame for Sir Stephen Soames’ coat of arms.

Most typically, stringcourses are simply stepped out in a flush plane about an inch off the wall and do not include specially shaped bricks. Their heights generally run from two to four courses, but three rows is by far the most common. Even from an early date stringcourses tend to be laid in Flemish bond; in fact, often it is the only portion of an elevation to be laid in this pattern. Once gauging and rubbing brickwork became common in the 1680s and 1690s, stringcourses were one of the first elements so treated.

Because stringcourses project from the wall surface, their top edges are vulnerable to water penetration and a lead cap is occasionally used

Chapter 2 2-14 to seal this surface. For this purpose lead is substantially rebuilt in the 1690s, it is quite cast into long sheets, the surface hammered, plausible that they had a simple, stepped and it is then cut to width with a chisel (these stringcourse. Perhaps that used on the college details can be observed at the College of building at William and Mary would serve as William and Mary where original lead flashing an appropriate design source. Thus, it would survives along with evidence that it was be three courses high, laid in Flemish bond, originally painted red brown). A sheet is let and made of even-color, gauged-and-rubbed into the mortar joint above the stringcourse bricks with 3/32" joints. A lead cap would be and turned down slightly over its front edge. optional. Despite the benefit of a lead cap, it is used only on more elaborate buildings, a tradition that Cornices carried into eighteenth-century work until stringcourses were abandoned altogether. Many early buildings, such as St. Nicholas at Chignal Smealey, have no cornice; their walls As with other masonry details, stringcourses in simply extend to carry the feet of the rafters. Virginia followed English precedent. Unusual Cornices are not a certainty for even later belt courses can be found in the region. At buildings such as the Black Horse Inn in Elm, Bacon’s Castle a large torus is carved from two Cambridgeshire (1663), and the King courses that extend across the front of the Almshouse in Worminghall, Buckinghamshire house and the sides of the front tower. This is not too different from the carved, convex V Cornice and stringcourse detail at Hemingstone Hall stringcourse used at the Grammar School, (1625), Suffolk, England. Photograph by Willie Little Thurlow or the more modest one at the Graham, 2001. nearby almshouse. The tower at St. Luke’s Church has one of the most elaborate stringcourses recorded for this project. It has an ovolo and fillet bottom course, several rows of flush brick, and is topped with an ovolo and then a beveled course. All of the special shapes are rubbed. The stringcourse at Fairfield was stepped and two courses high on the original section of the house. The west addition has a three-course high stringcourse that breaks over the front and rear doorways and abuts that on the original block. The church tower at Jamestown (c. 1690) has a two-course stringcourse laid in Flemish bond with glazed headers. The stringcourse on the college building at William and Mary is laid in three rows of gauged-and-rubbed Flemish bond. The Vir- ginia examples suggest that early stringcourses—dating from the third quarter of the century—were more sculptural than those from the end of the century and were executed squarely with an exuberant flourish that was part of what John Summerson christened the artisan mannerist tradition.14 In contrast, the later examples tend to be more restrained as facades were increasingly designed in a stricter classical idiom.

Following the design precedents in England and Virginia, it is likely that the early sections of Structure 144 had stringcourses with a sculptural profile. If Houses 3 and 4 were Chapter 2 2-15 (1675), which had none. When they do appear, cornices are usually designed in a classical fashion, if not literally, then at least in abstract terms. Wood cornices were outlawed in Lon- don after the fire of 1666, and although it did not stop builders from using them into the early eighteenth century as the surviving town houses in Queen Anne’s Gate indicate, it did promote the use of brick cornices. Accord- ingly, wooden ones became increasingly rare. Oddly, our first recorded wooden cornice dates as late as ca. 1655 at Tyttenhanger Park, Hertfordshire. The next one surveyed was at Yavington Mead in Hampshire from about 1680 and they can also be seen as late as 1703 at Mills Almshouse, Framlingham, both having modillion cornices. Wooden cornices were easier to fabricate than those laid in brick and were an efficient means of creating a classical arrangement, one that especially favored modillions.

Surprisingly, there was a strong tradition of brick cornices from a very early date. The 1610s grammar school and almshouse in Little Thurlow, for example, each had a brick cornice. That on the school was done with dentils, while the almshouse had a toothed cornice. Toothing was accomplished by creating a band of bricks set on an angle to give the impression Brick modillion cornice and carved gauged-and- of dentil work and are the most abstract of the rubbed quoins, Ampton Almshouse (1693), Suffolk, brick cornices. Often dentil and toothed England. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. cornices are made simply of a corbelled course, a dentil or tooth course, and a cap (the Some further refinements that characterized cap frequently being square tile pavers). Even eighteenth-century cornice-level decoration from an early date, more literal classically have their roots in seventeenth-century work. detailed brick cornices were used. At 40-41 For instance, by 1678, Winnock Almshouse in High Street, Wingham, the cornice is an entab- Colchester, Essex, had a brick cornice set lature that extends from panels created by a below a parapet on its long walls to hide the pilaster effect on the upper wall. The Old roof. This became a favorite devise in the Grammar School at Rye also used a brick Georgian and Regency periods, but can occa- entablature, but it included a toothed course. sionally be found on seventeenth-century At the 1655 White Hart Inn in Scole, two of the buildings. In a crude drawing of the College of rear gables had brick cornices shaped into William and Mary made in 1702, Swiss traveler large ovolos extending over several courses Franz Ludwig Michel depicted what may be the and were carved to shape. only Chesapeake example that has been discovered. It shows a parapet-like feature As often executed in stringcourses and water along its main, east façade, but the drawing is tables, these ovolos incorporated a fillet made so unreliable that the parapet is not a cer- of roofing tiles. A few buildings surveyed had tainty. Others have interpreted it as a plaster cove cornices, such as Red House modillion cornice. Ampton Almshouse, Suffolk (Buxlow Manor), Knodishall, Suffolk (1678), (1693), had a rubbed cornice, the only one but all observed of this type were potentially recorded for this survey. Finally, gauged work late seventeenth or eighteenth-century alter- in cornices seems to be largely an eighteenth- ations. century phenomenon. Chapter 2 2-16 Ampton Almshouse. Carved, rubbed, and gauged linked to wall and roof framing systems. The bricks were used to create the quoins on this 1694 closest example in date is Bacon’s Castle, and building. Hipped roofs were become fashionable at it has no eaves decoration save for a slight this time as shaped gables waned in popularity. Note projection of tie beams at each of the principal the flint gable and the twisted chimney stacks, the rafter bays. Part of the problem relates to the latter of which were hopelessly out of date by this time. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. development of Chesapeake roof forms as a type distinct from English framing; the middle Most Chesapeake buildings, though, are of the seventeenth century is a critical period unlikely to have a brick cornice. Bacon’s Castle in its evolution. The main question is whether has no exterior cornice, and by the end of the eaves overhangs are common at this time. century documents for high-end public build- Certainly overhangs are part of the roof ings are more likely to call for modillions laid system that develops in the region, but they in oil than brick, suggesting they are to be may also have been linked to the development made of wood. However, sites such as the Page of academically proportioned classical House in Williamsburg, and Curles Neck in cornices, and this was a phenomenon that Henrico County have so many shaped bricks in began at the end of the century. their archaeological debris that it is difficult to imagine some of this not being for a cornice, Given this scant evidence, it is most believable to have no cornice on the first-period houses. Working out the cornice designs for the If Houses 3 and 4 were rebuilt in the 1690s Jamestown row, especially in the earlier then it is plausible that they may have had a periods, is problematical. After all, there is a brick dentil or toothed cornice, or conceivably dearth of material for detailing eaves of an early version of a wood modillion cornice. Virginia buildings during the 1660s. Eaves However, these alternatives need to be construction and cornice design are closely carefully considered.

Chapter 2 2-17 Buckinghamshire (1610), by rendering them in stucco and this was a common enough practice. Tyttenhanger Park, Hertfordshire (ca. 1655), is the first use of brick quoins in the survey. They remain a minor alternative throughout the century, showing up in such places as the Black Horse Inn, Elm, Cambridgeshire, and the Ampton Almshouse. In this latter building they were clearly gauged, cut to shape, and then rubbed. An- other alternative for corners was to use pilasters, as was done at the 1658 row of four houses in Islington, the suburb just north of London, and a house in Godalming, Surrey, in 1663. Rendering quoins in carved brick instead

Black Horse Inn (1663), Elm, Cambridgeshire, England. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001.

Corner Details

As the seventeenth-century progressed, brickwork was typically used to mimic the stone massing and detailing of classical buildings. Many English structures had brick walls and stone dressings for their plinths, water tables, stringcourses, quoins, and cornices (see St. John the Evangelist Church, 1625, in Groombridge, Kent, for instance, or Norgrove Court, 1649, Feckenham, Worcestershire). The use of stone dressings for architraves, quoins, and cornices appear frequently in areas where St. Peter upon Cornhill (1677-84), London. Designed stone was easily available and less so in regions by Sir Christopher Wren. Note the use of rubbed work in the stringcourse, surrounding the window, bereft of natural freestone such as parts of and at the corner. Heavy quoins, as used at places Suffolk and Essex. Much of the brick detailing, such as the Black Horse Inn, have been eliminated, then, was simply carved to match shapes and but Wren has still had the corner sculpted with massing of what would otherwise have been carved brick. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. implemented in stone. For instance, the large ovolo cornices at the White Hart Inn, Scole, of stone was a favorite detail used by skilled were treated in this manner. But the detail that masons of this period. can be most closely linked to this practice is the inclusion of brick quoins. Quoins were Not surprisingly, the earliest use of rubbed added to St. James Church, Fulmer, corners appears in London following the Great

Chapter 2 2-18 Fire of 1666. For example, the tower of St. Peter, Cornhill, designed by Sir Christopher Wren and erected between 1677-1684, has finely rubbed corners. The edge of the tower was notched instead of coming to a right angle and had a small bead on the resulting two corners, the bead mimicking that around the tower windows and slotted vents. Other- wise, no rubbed corners were recorded outside of London that dated before 1693. Ampton Almshouse was built that year and included rubbed corners but in association with brick quoins. Rubbed corners without quoins seem to be largely an upscale London conceit of the post-fire period and not widely adopted elsewhere until the early eighteenth century. However, we should acknowledge that our sample may have been skewed and such examples may survive elsewhere from the last quarter of the seventeenth century. The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg featured rubbed corners when first constructed in 1695- 97. These bricks are no lighter than St. Luke’s Church (ca. 1682). Isle of Wight County, the body brick, and thus it was not initially Virginia. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. apparent that they were rubbed.

Another corner detail that changes over time brickwork and they were not omitted simply as is the use of closers. Not surprisingly, even in a fashionable conceit.15 quite poor brickwork, closers were used to offset vertical joints to keep them from rack- Evidence for quoins would not necessarily ing. Closers made it possible to properly bond show up below grade, especially if delineation brickwork at openings as well, but at times the of quoins started at the top of the water table. coursing could be worked out sufficiently to However, quoins are relatively rare; the most omit them at these places. Omission of closers straightforward design would be to eliminate altogether was done in very fine masonry work them from the corners of all the main build- and was usually associated with the late ings. Since only one example of rubbed cor- eighteenth- and early-nineteenth centuries. ners without quoins was discovered on both One notable exception is the Winnock sides of the Atlantic, it is unlikely that they Almshouse in Colchester, Essex (1678), where would have been used here. there was a conscious effort to omit closers from the corners and possibly around the The porches should be the focus of elaborately windows as well. No other seventeenth- carved brickwork and those on Houses 3 and century examples were recorded as part of this 4 are good candidates for having quoins. survey, although it is worth noting that such Porches on the Black Horse Inn and the Porch places as Bacon’s Castle were laid in a rough House could serve as appropriate models for English bond with a high percentage of bats the general treatment of these features, while and make-up bricks. Here, closers were used the quoins could be specifically detailed from quite sparingly due to the poor nature of the those on the tower of St. Luke’s Church.

Chapter 2 2-19 angled cuts on bricks with a hammer remained a dominant Anglo-American building practice for several centuries. As late as 1807-08 at the Russell House in Charleston, South Carolina, squint bricks used to form the corners of its projecting garden façade bow were cut and finished in this manner.16

The profusion of shaped brickwork appeared most frequently from the middle of the seventeenth century and was used to spectacular effect by masons working in a new provincial style known as artisan mannerism. The bul- bous projections, pilasters, and other elaborate brickwork at the White Hart Inn in Scole were carved to shape (after having been fired), and this was likely the normal pattern for most shaped work other than chamfers and possibly simple ovolos. Shaped bricks at the Spencer- Pierce-Little House in Massachusetts were cut to shape when the bricks were green and then fired, and this could have been more common in the English work than was recognized during the survey project.17 Certainly the exposed faces of stretcher bricks used in the walls of the Quaker Cottage in Beccles were distressed while green, and this may signal that the practice of manipulating green bricks was a wide-spread alternative to carving fired bricks. Porch House (1657), Haddenham, Cambridgeshire. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. Evidence does survive for molded and specially shaped brick in the Chesapeake. St. Carved and Molded Bricks Luke’s Church and Fairfield each used ovolo brick, the former having been cut cut to shape, It is often quite difficult to discern from old the latter molded. Water table bricks in the buildings how their brick shapes were fabri- church tower at Jamestown are also shaped as cated. They could be molded to shape, carved ovolos, but without a fillet. At the later ca. while green and then fired, or they could be 1731 Northampton County courthouse on the carved after having first been fired. Several Eastern Shore, the double, Flemish bond water centuries of erosion and patina, and the table was carved after being fired and the otherwise subtle characteristics of these ovolos have fillets. A stretcher brick with a various practices simply obscures the genesis fillet and two cavettos molded to shape are of complex shapes. located in a display case at Jamestown and was probably used as a water table brick, or con- With this difficulty in mind, it does appear that ceivably for a cornice.18 Ovolo and cavetto most early shaped bricks, save those used for bricks are cut to shape to form an ogee profile window mullions, were cut to profile from at the base of the corbelling for the gable burnt bricks. The chamfered jambs of Chignal parapets at Bacon’s Castle. Score lines on the Smealey were cut to shape before being laid. water table brick at the College of William and After the wall was up, the cut face was further Mary demonstrates that these beveled bricks cleaned by hammer work. The sharp blade of a were also cut to shape. Conceivably the mul- mason’s hammer was gently and repeatedly lion brick from the chapel site at St. Mary’s City struck on the cut face to render this surface flat and those discovered at Jamestown were and relatively smooth. The practice of cleaning molded before being fired. In short, Virginia

Chapter 2 2-20 Detail of the tower at St. Luke’s (ca. 1682), Isle of Wight County, Virginia. Bricks have been carved with an ovolo and a fillet to surround this opening, and exposed faces of the shaped bricks have been rubbed to brighten and regularize their surface. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. seems to have nearly the full range of specially shaped brick that was discovered in our English survey.

A beveled brick was discovered in loose rubble at Structure 144, possibly for a window or opening. Also recovered from the 1950s excavations of the site was a brick with two cavetto-shaped corners that seems to have been used for a window jamb in House 5. If the windows were wide, cavetto-shaped brick mullions similar to the ones used at the Catholic chapel at St. Mary’s City in the 1660s may have subdivided them.

Except for the cavetto-shaped brick used for a window jamb in House 5, determining where to use specially shaped brick at Structure 144 is a difficult task. We know that water tables were not shaped, and yet this is one of the most prevalent places such work is seen. The evidence for Houses 4 and 5 are clear—a stepped water table. A pediment over the door such as that used in the tower at St. Luke’s can often be found on porches in English designs and would seem appropriate here, again especially for Houses 3 and 4. Specially shaped bricks are likely in the string- an ogee created over two courses. courses of the early buildings and possibly the corners of early porches (see discussion under Using tiles for fillets would be appropriate, and stringcourse and corners). may best fit with the north addition to Houses 3 and 4. Since flat tiles have been recovered at Shaped bricks are also frequently used in the Jamestown that appear to have been used in corbelling at the base of gable parapets. walls, and they were found in the foundations English precedents show that earlier buildings of the addition to House 4, this seems to be the tended to have little to no shaped bricks in the appropriate place to employ such a detail. corbelling. When shaped bricks were included, they often were not classically arranged, such Shaped bricks, except for mullions if they are as the pairing of two courses of ovolos without used, should be cut to shape after first having fillets. Later examples tend to have courses been fired, this being the most common pro- that are better worked out. Often an ovolo is duction method discovered in Virginia build- combined with a cavetto to create a cyma ings. over two courses. Gable-end stringcourses are also more likely to be worked into the corbel- Arches ling detail at a later date. Bacon’s Castle provides a good model for the earlier houses The treatment of apertures varied widely in the with its two courses of ovolos without fillets. first half of the seventeenth century. Pointed St. Luke’s could work well for later houses with arches continued to be used, whether set in a

Chapter 2 2-21 square or flat-headed opening, as at the Wilbraham Almshouse, Hertfordshire (1612), or without, as was used for the front doorway to the Hitcham Almshouse in Framlingham, Suffolk (1654). This latter building included brick hoods or drip moldings over the windows, a common devise during this period and often seen rendered in stucco. Cavetto- shaped mullioned bricks were recovered in the archaeological remains of the 1660s brick chapel at St. Mary’s City, and similar bricks have turned up in Jamestown. The front doorway of the Kedermister Almshouse in Langley Marish, Buckinghamshire (1617), was our first recorded use of a rounded or compass head. By Although wide openings for casements were initially the second half of the century, compass heads laid out at the College of William and Mary when had become quite common in public build- work began in 1695, workmen were immediately ings—especially churches—designed in the directed to switch the proportions for installation of classical idiom. This can be seen in the sash windows. Above cellar level, gauged-and- rubbed jack arches spanned the openings, here seen churches Sir Christopher Wren designed for tucked beneath the stringcourse with its lead London following the Great Fire of 1666. Two capping. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. Virginia churches from the 1680s had compass-headed windows—St. Luke’s and the first brick Bruton Parish Church. The former mixed openings and permitted the three-dimensional pointed arches within compass openings, the rendering of surfaces in the form of entabla- latter had compass-headed windows and a jack tures and voussoirs. arch over its door, if Franz Ludwig Michel’s drawing is to be believed. Jack arches with uncarved surface decoration increase dramatically in the 1680s. In finer Segmental and flat arches appear in the early buildings these could be embellished by being seventeenth century. At first, segmental arches gauged and rubbed. Those on the second floor are used on primary façades of great houses, at 40-41 High Street, Wingham, are rubbed, but but by century’s end, they are often relegated they are perhaps a later alteration. The first to secondary elevations and cellar openings. By reliable record of rubbed jack arches is on the then, flat jack arches are employed for princi- front of Cowcroft Farmhouse, Latimer, pal walls on English houses. While flat arches Buckinghamshire (1671), a double-pile house appear in some apertures at Hemingstone Hall with classical entablature and hipped roof. The (1625) and at 40-41 High Street, Wingham, sidewalls of Cowcroft had segmental arches. By there seems to be a hierarchical pattern to their the 1690s, windows proportioned for sash and use. In these buildings, bricklayers fashioned capped with jack arches show up in Virginia. A segmental ones on the first story and flat arches jack arch may have been used over the west on the upper floor. Most buildings recorded door of Bruton Parish Church in the 1680s, but with jack arches that date from the first third of by the time the brickwork of the college build- the seventeenth century did not have simple ing nearby was laid in 1695-97, it had gauged- flat arches. At the Dutch House, Kew, for and-rubbed jack arches over its windows and instance, carved brick voussoirs are used in the Georgian proportions to the openings. Fairfield head, a detail similar to that executed at the Old also appears to have similar windows, but Grammar School in Rye. The White Hart Inn, cames recovered from the site suggest that the Scole, incorporated a full brick entablature in openings were filled with leaded glass and not the arch over its primary openings, and even sash. (Note that there are a large number of the segmental heads of the windows at the Black ovolo jamb bricks recovered from this site. Horse Inn, Elm (1663), have keystones. Conceivably the sash-style openings are a later, Straight arches allowed for classical detailing of eighteenth-century alteration.)

Chapter 2 2-22 A plausible scenario for Structure 144 at Jamestown would be to use square openings in which cavetto-molded window jambs are set for casement windows based on the molded brick jamb found at House 5. Segmentally arched apertures are perhaps the most likely form given its popularity in England and Virginia at this time. The others might have a similar treatment, or could perhaps be surrounded with stucco, lugged in the corners, as was done at Bacon’s Castle. With the dated lead cames from the 1680s recovered in the 1950s for either House 4 or House 5, it seems reasonable to reconstruct the windows with segmental jack arches filled with leaded lights. Assuming Houses 3 and 4 to have been extensively remodeled about 1694, it is conceivable this unit received sash openings at that time.

Gauged-and-Rubbed Work

During the heyday of gauged-and- rubbed brickwork walls were laid as a flat plane with the exception of projecting water tables, stringcourses, cornices, and perhaps a frontispiece. Quoins were omitted from corners, and openings were spanned with arches set in the same plane as the walls. The most enriched of these buildings had rubbed corners, rubbed dressings to doorways and windows, and gauged-and-rubbed arches over openings. As in Virginia in the eighteenth century, the best English brickwork of the late-seventeenth Thomas Sherman House (1735), Dedham, Suffolk, century included gauged-and-rubbed water England. Carved gauged-and-rubbed work is used in tables, stringcourses, and cornices. Lighter this eighteenth-century house to contrast with its bricks were often used to enhance the rubbed yellow wall brick. Photograph by Willie Graham, work. Each of these details showed up in the 2001. English sample, save the gauged-and-rubbed earliest known example. The arches are carved water table, but even this was likely used on bricks, made to appear as voussoirs, and the Wren churches not recorded as part of this jambs are laid as quoins. The nature of carved project. work lent itself to being rubbed in order to regularize its surface and to remove blemishes. Gauged-and-rubbed work is said to have been a By gauging the bricks, joints could be laid more fashion introduced to England from Holland.19 tightly (with 3/32 inch often used as the Gerald Lynch lists the Dutch House, Kew, as the tolerance). Gauged bricks allowed for a more

Chapter 2 2-23 plastic character to the carvings; architectural table and course below it. The extent of gauging elements could be shaped without being and rubbing and the quality of its execution repeatedly broken by large, white joints. became the standard for Georgian work of the next century. By the last two decades of the seventeenth century much of the articulation so favored at It is unlikely that the early periods of construc- mid century by the artisan mannerists was tion for Structure 144 had any rubbed work. If giving way to a less provincial, restrained, Houses 3 and 4 were rebuilt in the 1690s, then classical aesthetic. Gauged-and-rubbed work gauged-and-rubbed work is certainly possible was soon adopted as standard practice, eclips- for first- and second-floor fenestration. The ing the use of carved work except for frontis- stringcourse is also a good candidate for a pieces. All the necessary components for good similar treatment. The water table was Georgian brick laying had been worked out by stepped on Houses 3, 4 and 5 and not rubbed. century’s end, forming the basis for high Given the dearth of evidence for rubbing quality masonry work that characterized corners and cornices during this period, these eighteenth-century England and Virginia. elements should remain un-worked.

The earliest rubbed work discovered in Virginia Hearth brick associated with the second is the carved bricks in the tower of St. Luke’s chimney location in House 4 at its east end are gauged-and-rubbed, suggesting that that a mason with skill was working on Houses 3 and 4 when the chimneys were moved and the porches were built (presumably at some time after the 1676 fire, possibly in the 1690s). Rubbing and possibly some gauge work seem quite possible for the facades of these houses. Stringcourses, shaped brick, and decorative work in the tower are the best candidates for being so treated.

Mortar Joints

Detail of the stringcourse at the College of William and Mary (1695-1697). Mortar joints average 3/32”. The condition of mortar joints for surviving The lead capping, which is largely original, was seventeenth-century buildings makes it diffi- originally painted red. Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001. cult to assess their original configuration. However, in every case observed when the joint profile could be read it was struck with a Church.20 Brick quoins were carved to profile grapevine joint, as at Elmswell, Suffolk (1614), and then rubbed to regularize their surface and an early building in the survey. Finish work on to bring out color in these bricks. Ovolo bricks surviving examples from Maryland and Vir- used in the stringcourse and around door and ginia are also similarly struck. Bacon’s Castle, window jambs were likewise carved to shape St. Luke’s, the church tower at Jamestown, the and rubbed. At least those used for the jambs College of William and Mary, and Fairfield all were chosen for their light, contrasting color. used this joint on the exterior. At times, even Similar ovolo bricks recovered at Fairfield were interior cellar walls were given a finished, not rubbed. When the college building at grapevine joint. The 1662 Page House in William and Mary was constructed the full Williamsburg, Arlington (ca. 1675), Structure range of refined gauged-and-rubbed work was 19 A/B at Jamestown, Fairfield, and Sotterley, in place—splayed jack arches with 3/32" mortar St. Mary’s County (ca. 1717), had cellars laid in joints, rubbed segmental arches over cellar this fashion. openings with glazed headers in the upper part of the arches, and a gauged-and-rubbed string- Tuck-pointing is a method of laying bricks to course. Corners were rubbed, as was the water give a more regularized appearance to the

Chapter 2 2-24 joints. Bricks would be laid in a common White Hart Inn (1655), Scole, Norfolk. Photograph mortar mix, often with a lower lime to sand- by Willie Graham, 2001. and-clay ratio than the finished joints would have. The mason would then rake the joints bricks of House 5 were painted in addition to back slightly and point the exterior in a finer the mortar. mortar. Many Georgian masons perfected the art of tuck pointing in England as did workmen The biggest distinction in mortar joints from in some of the colonies, most notably in the low one end of the century to the other is in the size country of South Carolina. Except for possibly of the joints and the regularity in which bricks Wren’s work in London, we did not observe any are laid. The general trend was for thicker and tuck-pointing in seventeenth-century English cruder joints at the beginning of the century, buildings. However, two Virginia examples and finer, tighter joints at the end. No matter have come to light. The upper walls of Arling- what end of the century, joint sizes vary within ton were laid with extra wide and crude joints. a wall due to irregularity in bricks—their sizes A mason then tuck-pointed this work with a as well as the straightness of their edges. Given thin coat of mortar that was struck with a this variability, early joints in England tend to grapevine and painted red ocher in attempt to range between ½” and ¾”, and by mid century, blend the joints with the adjoining brickwork.21 better work was laid with ¼” to 3/8" joints, Fragments of painted tuck-pointed joints were while more common work measured about ½”. also found in a disturbed context in Houses 2 Masonry in the Chesapeake tended to have and 5 at Structure 144, Jamestown. Again, red wider joints, with the earliest surviving build- ocher was used, this time identified as part of a ings having joints between ½” and ¾”, but limewash with carbohydrate and protein some reaching a thickness of over 1". Those on additives.22 Further research has shown the the college building at William and Mary Chapter 2 2-25 generally fall between 7/16" and ¾”, but again an opportunity to demonstrate their virtuosity some of the work includes joints that approach with elaborate shapes and molded forms. The 1½”. Even as late as 1711-15 in the present fashion for decorated gables in English archi- Bruton Parish church, joints measure a wide 5/ tecture began in the sixteenth century as the 8" to ¾”. walls of many brick churches and dwellings terminated in tall gables that soared above Since foundations survive to a height near rooflines. During the Elizabethan period, historic grade for most phases of Structure stepped gables appeared with increasing 144, the size of joints can easily be determined. frequency, perhaps in imitation of the In one place the joint survives well enough crenellated church tower and castle parapets of intact to read its profile, and that is a grape- the fifteenth and early-sixteenth centuries, now vine joint located on the north wall of House 5. set along the rake of steep roofs. A series of Undoubtedly this was the profile used on the stepped gables crown the east and west walls of exterior of all phases. Interior brickwork needs St. Michael, Woodham Walter, Essex (1563-4), further examination, but it was likely a free- which is finished with specially shaped coping hand, undercut joint. bricks. The form remained popular throughout southeast England into the next century and Mortar joint sizes for the various periods of reappeared in Virginia by the second half of the construction are as follows: seventeenth century.

Foundations, Houses 1 and 2: 3/8" to ¾” The fashion for shaped gables grew in the early Foundations, Houses 3 and 4: ½” to ¾” seventeenth century as architects working in Porch, Houses 3 and 4: ¾” London and the countryside adopted motifs Foundations, House 5: ¾” that had their origins in Renaissance practices established in the Netherlands in the middle of Gable Shapes the sixteenth century.23 London and the Home

Standing above the roofline, parapeted gables Buxlow Hall (1678), Knodishall, Suffolk, England. provided seventeenth-century bricklayers with Photograph by Willie Graham, 2001.

Chapter 2 2-26 Counties proved receptive to scrolled or technique—the goal was to record buildings curved gables, being introduced in several with known dates, and these tended to be the townhouses such as Holland House, more elaborately finished. Buildings with Kensington, (ca. 1606-07) and Eagle House (ca. crenellated gables, ones with straight gable 1613), and villas in the area such as Swakeleys, parapets but with tumbled shoulders, and Middlesex (ca. 1629-38).24 These forms spread hipped roofs were encountered as minor across the country in the next decades. With its variants, but were undoubtedly far more decorative curvilinear dormers capped with prevalent. The first recorded shaped gable in stone, Blickling in Norfolk (1616-27) is a good the survey was Abbot’s Almshouse in example of the introduction of this form in Guildford, Surrey (1619), and the last was the more remote parts of East Anglia within a few short years of its appearance in London. Bacon’s Castle (1665), Surry County, Virginia. The Curved gables survived as a fashionable state- curvilinear gables are partially masked by exterior ment until the 1660s. Even then, it continued chimneys with their triple, diamond-set stacks. into the early eighteenth century outside of Photograph by Willie Graham, 1991. London.

The seventeenth-century gables in the survey came in diverse forms—stepped, straight, and curvilinear. The latter type with convex and concave shapes was by far the most common recorded. This is the result of the sampling

St. Nicholas Abbey (third quarter seventeenth century), St. Peter, Barbados. Photograph by Willie Graham, 1999.

Quaker Cottage, Beccles, dating to 1715. Once they waned in popularity, hipped roofs became the dominant choice for better buildings. Berkeley Hospital in Worcester (1702), and the Mills Almshouse, Framingham (1703), each was built with hipped roofs.

Shaped gables migrated to the colonies in the seventeenth century—Bacon’s Castle (1665) in Virginia, being perhaps the most familiar early building to survive with them. They appeared in Boston in the Province House of the 1680s as well as in Dutch-influenced colonies such as New York and New Jersey. The Caribbean saw its share of shaped gables such as at St. Nicho- las Abbey in Barbados (third quarter seven-

Chapter 2 2-27 teenth century). In Virginia, their popularity followed that of England—still fashionable in the third quarter of the seventeenth century, but eventually eclipsed by buildings with hipped roofs and classical cornices by the beginning of the second quarter of the eighteenth century. Even so, they could be found as late as 1701-03 at St. Peter’s in New Kent County and possibly 1711-15 in the present Bruton Parish church in Williamsburg before straight gables replaced them in the 1740s. Shaped gables did not disappear entirely from colonial American building. They continued in use Charleston and low country buildings through the American Revolution. St. Stephen’s church in Berkeley County, South Carolina (1767), still retains its shaped gables at its east and west ends.

In Virginia, even as shaped gables disappear from use, corbelled eaves remained as a viable treatment for country buildings well into the eighteenth century. At Fairfield, Gloucester County (1694), for instance, despite having a hipped roof, the mason was able to add corbelling, one that required a wood modillion cornice to stop short of it. This tradition can be seen as late as 1741 at Pear Valley in Accomack County, a brick-ender that uses corbelling to stop the eaves of an exposed tilted false plate against the masonry wall.

Parapeted gables seem plausible for the entire row given the propensity for using these forms during the second half of the seventeenth century. More tightly dating the various construction periods for later sections of the row and knowing which sections stood con- temporaneously with others would help in refining gable conditions. Straight gables seem likely for the rear additions made to the north of Houses 1 and 2 and Houses 3 and 4, but a case could be made for either straight or curvilinear on the main block. Since the row was built under several hands at different periods of time, gable shapes and corbelling should vary to reflect that organic process.

Chapter 2 2-28 ENDNOTES

1 Gerard Lynch, Brickwork: History, Technology and 97 building campaign, and not an early eighteenth-century Practice. 2vols. (London: Donhead Publishing, 1994), I, pp. alteration that followed a disastrous fire in 1705, as 6-11; R. W. Brunskill, Brickmaking in Britain (London: purported by Colonial Williamsburg architects in 1930. Victor Gollancz, 1990), pp. 130-141. 13 Archaeological remains recovered from Structure 125 (ca. 2 Brunskill, Brickmaking in Britain, pp. 40-41. 1650) include flat roof tiles with mortar on them that appear 3 At St. Nicholas, Chignal Smealey, for instance, the interior to have been laid in walls. A few flat tiles are in situ at wall surfaces are laid with brick softer than those on the Structure 144 where they are used to help level rubble-stone exterior. In Virginia, foundations of Fairfield in Gloucester footings to brick foundations of the north addition to House County (1698 wing) are laid on a bed of broken bricks and 4. brick dust, all coming from under-fired sections of a kiln. 14 John Summerson, Architecture in Britain, 1530-1830 Eighteenth-century buildings in this colony routinely display (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 142-156. sammel bricks in their foundations, and the same seems to 15 Closers were seen as an important part of the display of hold for most of the foundations of Structure 144. brickwork at the College of William and Mary, for after 4 Timothy Easton, “The Disguise of Historic Brickwork having created one of the openings on the east, main façade, a Rediscovered,” in Material Culture in Medieval Europe ed. mason used a hammer and chisel to cut fake joints in longer by Guy De Boe and Frans Verhaeghe (Zellik, Belgium: bricks to give the appearance of closers and headers properly Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium, 1997), pp. arranged about the opening. This effort was abandoned at 485-495. other openings where closers were omitted. 5 Vernacular Architecture Group Spring Conference 2001, 16 An unusual use of hammered brickwork is the exposed “Suffolk,” unpublished brochure, Badley Hall, Badley, p. 33. surfaces of the water table and jack arch bricks at Gunston 6 Susan Buck, “Bacon’s Castle Painted Mortar and Painted Hall, Fairfax County, Virginia (ca. 1758). Brick Samples, Surry County, Virginia,” report for the 17 Information on the Spencer-Pierce-Little house comes Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, June 18, 2002 and July from Myron Stachiw. 11, 2002. 18 The site from which this brick was excavated has not yet 7 Susan Buck, “Cross-Section Microscopy Report: been determined. A similar profile was used in the cornice of Jamestown Brick and Plaster samples, Structure 144, the White Hart Inn in Scole. Jamestown, Virginia,” report for the Colonial Williamsburg 19 Lynch, Brickwork, I, p. 45. Foundation and Jamestown Rediscovery, August 5, 2002, p. 20 There are some rubbed bricks recovered at Jamestown 16 from an early context that are not yet well understood. Small 8 Another variant bond pattern that was used in the bricks recently excavated in the bulwark trench, pit 1, and in seventeenth century was all-header bond. Although rarely Structure 165 (all associated with the fort and pre-date 1610) seen in this century it became popular in the Georgian appear to be gauged and rubbed and are possibly part of a period, both in England and parts of America. St. John the small kiln or oven-like feature. There are also gauged-and- Evangelist church, Groombridge, Kent (1625) has all-header rubbed chamfered and cavetto bricks in a display case whose bond. It was a common pattern in late colonial houses in sites are not readily known. Annapolis, Maryland, and was often used in round projec- 21 Letter from Frank Welsh to Willie Graham, 31 October tions or buildings, such as apses on public buildings, or 1994, on file Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. small, round outbuildings such as the dovecote Shirley, 22 Report from paint analyst Susan Buck to Beverly Straube Charles City County, Virginia (ca. 1772). of the APVA, August 2001. 9 Two quite late examples of all-glazed header Flemish bond 23 See Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled are known. The early nineteenth-century office at the Coke- Garrett lot in Williamsburg, Virginia was built in all-glazed Gables of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries header Flemish bond. Likewise, the second floor addition to (New York: New York University Press, 1978), pp. 95-98. Mt. Pleasant, Surry County, Virginia was done in a similar 24 Nicholas Cooper, Houses of the Gentry 1480-1680 (New pattern about 1810, this time to match the work of the Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 130-137. original, mid eighteenth-century one-story house. 10 Multiple stretcher courses can occasionally be found when masons attempted to straighten out mistakes in laying courses, as was done on the east façade of the College of William and Mary to make header and stretcher courses properly align with those on the north gable. 11 Ronald Brunskill and Alec Clifton-Taylor, English Brickwork (London: Ward Lock Limited, 1974), pp. 16, 27. 12 Recent reexamination of the College of William and Mary has revealed that the pavilion was part of the original 1695-

Chapter 2 2-29 APPENDIX 2-A Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Brick Buildings in England

Chapter 1 APPENDIX 2-A Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Brick Buildings in England

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments St. Nicholas Chignal Smealey, Essex c.1530 9½ - 9¾ x 2¼ x red, little English 2 course, both English, none none; windows: none none not rubbed 1/2" jambs cut & one story; closers 4½- 4 5/8 glazing; glazed beveled, irregular exposed beveled/cove finished with diapering in stretchers rafter ends jambs, shaped sharp end of tower hood hammer, water table unclear as to manufacture Hastings Chapel, St. Stoke Poges, 1558 red with none visible none English none none stone dressings none none not rubbed brick buttresses Giles Buckinghamshire random glazing St. Michael Woodham Walter, 1563-4 9" – 10" x 2¼" x red English bevel stone irregular none none stone dressings none none not rubbed 5/8" to ¾" none stepped gables Essex 4¾" English, some Flemish courses North Chapel, St. Stanstead Abbots, 1577 stone English none none James Church Hertforshire Beaupre Hall Farm Outwell, c. 1600 red English stepped English none none drip molding none none not rubbed ovolos, wall steps back at Cambridgeshire over windows cavettos string course level; unclear as to closers manufacture Nos. 8-9 Row 117 Great Yarmouth, 1604 E nglish, James I coat of Norfolk irregular arms—dates building between 1603 & 1625 St. James Church Fulmer, Bucks 1610 red with English beveled, English around none stuccoed in none none stuccoed chamfered pilasters reddish- stretchers second body; chamfer- quoins door jambs brown stage of ed edge around interspersed tower; porch entrance two sloped courses; then stepped Wilbraham's Monken Hadley, 1612 red, lots of English turns down at English pointed arches mullions none not rubbed cavetto one story, straight Almshouse Hertfordshire glazing doorway set in square carved/ mullions gable parapets, head; cove rubbed to molded gables now mullions carved/ shape; stuccoed; diamond- rubbed to shape; lighter set stacks lighter bricks bricks used used ever-other ever-other course on jambs course on jambs of windows Elmswell Almshouse Elmswell, Suffolk 1614 9¼ - 9 7/8 x 2 x orange-red- now stuccoed beveled, English none none now stuccoed none none 1/2" - carved: ovolo straight gable 4¼ - 4½ brown, light rowlock 3/4"; (hood); ovolo, parapets; one story; glazing grapevine cavetto closers (corbels) Soame Grammar Little Thurlow, Suffolk 1614 8½ - 9 x 1 7/8- 2 red, no glazing English, beveled 3 English, 4 course brick, stucco window none none not rubbed 1/2" - 3/4" string course straight gable School x 3¼ - 4 poorly laid walls; 1 gable poorly laid w/ tile dentils surround; bricks carved; parapets; walls step stepped fillet; beveled door chamfered in between floors 1 upper jamb water table & 2; 2 story; closers one in carved gable 1 course St. Peter Buntingford, 1615 red, no glazed English beveled, English, 9rebuilt 1 th c. none none corbels straight gable Hertfordshire pattern rowlock irregular parapets; parapets, corbelled eaves

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Kedermister Langley Marish, 1617 red, dark red, Flemish, stepped Flemish, 3 stucco window none none stuccoed none gables are not Almshouse Buckinghamshire random irregular irregular courses, surrounds; quoins parapets, but does glazing English compass have front gables doorways Little Thurlow Little Thurlow, Suffolk 1618 8½ - 9 x 2 x 3¾ - red, no glazing English, stepped English, gables- brick, V b ricks, straight gable Almshouse 4 poorly laid poorly laid cut in toothed chamfered, parapets, one story; shape of band cavetto, ovolo closers "V", 1 all carved course Abbot’s Almshouse Guildford, Surrey 1619 dark red to English stretcher, English stone none stone dressings; none none shaped gable purple beveled stone parapets, frontispiece projecting 4-story polygonal towers 44 High Street Wingham, Kent 1620 (now painted Flemish hearts flank hip on 1 side, gable white) center, 2nd- abuts another floor window building on other side; 2 story Pest House Odiham, Hampshire 1622 red with English none none rebuilt none none humble 1-story, 1 random room bldg glazing More Almshouses Odiham, Hampshire 1623 red, random English stretcher, English none none windows rebuilt; doorjambs 1-story, U-shaped glazing bevel doorways arched chamfered in to a point, drip place (seem to course above; be rounded) jambs chamfered (or rounded) in place Hemingstone Hall Hemingstone, Suffolk 1625 9½ - 9¾ x 2¼ x red English header, bevel, English, 4 courses shaped flat arches, none none ½ - ¾ molded cap on 2 story; shaped 4½ out 3 inches irregular & 2 tiles: brick headers with parapet (could gable parapets; top/ bevel also in be later gable ornaments down: jambs; some replacement); are replacement of cyma windows have ovolo, cavetto original; tiles used with closers & cyma corbel as fillets in parapet fillet, 2 bricks, corbelling; closers courses, possibly small molded torus with fillet at bottom St. John the Groombridge, Kent 1625 header stone header stone stone none none straight gable Evangelist Church parapets; stone & brick buttresses 40-41 High Street Wingham, Kent 1628 red, random English front, double Flemish, with 2 course, shaped segmental first jack arches no not rubbed 2nd floor 2 story brick glazing, more Flemish side stepped one some patches Flemish; brick floor; jack arch (ck date) pilaster base; on front wall, single of English; sides entab- (rubbed) second brick stepped some glazing stepped, lature floor; are jack entablature second wall done all- front arches later? glazed header, stepped but very little twice Dutch House, Kew London 1631 red, little to no yes Flemish entab- brick square-head yes yes shaped gable Gardens glazing lature windows, (openings parapets; shaped between circular-head surrounded cross gables; floors 1 & door & center, by quoins & diamond-set 2, 2 & 3 upper floor voussoirs) chimney windows St. Peter's Church Levington, Suffolk 1636 red brick, little flint stone largely stone (2 molded hoods, none none stone quoins window 3-story tower, (tower) to no glazing English, some levels) beveled jambs & alternate jambs/hood crenellated top, 1/2 bond, 1/3 mullion with bricks buttresses; closers bond Old Grammar School Rye, East Sussex 1636 reddish stone beveled English, 3 brick flat jack arches possibly possibly pilaster in cornice of 2-story, giant order brown, irregular courses, entab- with voussoirs arches arches building & pilasters, rusticated random broken lature, shaped gables, arches, shaped glazing by toothed pilasters, dormer gables project- band rustication ing pilasters

Appendix 2-A 2-A-2

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Tower, All Saints Odiham, Hampshire 1647 red to brown flint below English 3, strings brick with stone dressing pilasters molded upper stages of at stone, lower level; pilaster caps tower of brick, different parapeted compass lower portion in levels, 3 above with enframed in flint courses coping tile pilaster & entab- each, lature in upper molded level top course at top of tower Norgrove Court Feckenham, 1649 red, random English stone English stone stone dressings none none stone quoins 2 story, hipped roof Worcestershire glazing Outbuilding, Fressingfield, Suffolk 1653 9½ x 2 ½ x 4 ½ - red, no glazing Flemish ovolo, with a English none none none not rubbed 1/4 - 3/8 ovolo water odd relationship of Whittinham Hall 4 5/8 tile used for a surviving table may be Flemish fillet molded foundations & English walls suggest Flemish bond intentions abandoned once wall reached water table level; closers Hitcham Almshouse Framlingham, Suffolk 1654 English beveled English none brick brick hoods over none none not rubbed cornice—at 1 story, front cross stretchers cornice at openings; 4- least ovolo gables; closers base of point arch over gables, front entrance molded or carved White Hart Inn Scole, Norfolk 1655 9 – 9 1/8 x 2 x 4 red, little some English, front: some English, east rear brick brick window no (later no (later not rubbed shaped brick pilaster caps at ¼ - 4 3/8 glazing some Flemish Flemish, mostly gable: 4 cornice; entablature; work) work) carved corners form ovolo; Rear: Flemish courses, some pilaster caps corbeling for fillet, ovolo, with top shaped shaped gable Flemish course a into large parapets; 2-story; cavetto & ovolo; one closers fillet with (becomes toothed archit- band; tiles rave of used for column fillets entablature) Tyttenhanger Park Hertfordshire c. 1655 reddish English 4 course, wood flat arch with window window brick quoins brown, starts out molded surrounds surrounds (not rubbed) random English, architraves, glazing goes lugged, Flemish, pediments, stepped gauged & rubbed surrounds Winchester College Winchester, 1656 red with some stone stone English none none stone dressings; none none stone quoins 2-story, gables Hampshire random round arched without parapets glazing doorway of porch Porch House Haddenham, 1657 9 1/8 - 9 ¾ x 2 hard-fired English chamfered, English 2 course brick, appears to have none none not rubbed 3/8" - 1/2" shaped bricks 2 story; left gable Cambridgeshire 5/8 - 2 ¾ x 4 1/8 - red/purple, (poorly laid) rowlocks (poorly laid, over tile toothed had wood lintels (some as carved (cove seems to have 4¼ some clinkers, lots of bats) fillet, band over windows; much as in pediment, originally been random English chamfered, 1"); impost blocks) shaped, original glazing bond circular head grapevine water table condition of right over door chamfer likely gable unclear; rear, molded left gable has no glazing, others have random glazing; closers John Smith Hospital Canterbury, Kent 1657 red, light none n/a English none brick casements, no none none not rubbed cavetto, ovolo shaped parapet glazing modillion arches over modillion base gables, 1-story; windows in cornice; closers gable corbels

Appendix 2-A 2-A-3

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Drake Almshouse Amersham, Bucks 1657 red stuccoed or Flemish, very none none stone dressings molded straight parapet stone irregular entablature gables bricks for blind arches 52-55 Newington Islington, London 1658 red 3 story, row of 4, Green front gables Polhampton Polhampton, c. 1660 red English stretcher, English 8 courses brick projecting band none none not rubbed shaped bricks 2-story, double pile Hampshire beveled & 3 tile around casement for window house, hipped roof courses, windows with jambs & string at top 3 lugged course, protrudi architraves- mullions ng cymas, ovolo courses mullions, of ovolos, beveled sills plastered band in string course House Godalming, Surrey 1663 dark red rebuilt elaborate brick with flat jack arches elaborate central projecting & toothed pilasters cartouche recessing band patterns in walls between windows on 2nd story Black Horse Inn Elm, Cambridgeshire 1663 9 - 9¼ x 2 3/8- 2 red English, ovolo English 2 course none brick keystone none none brick quoins 1/2"-3/4" shaped bricks 2 story, shaped 5/8 x 4 - 4 ¼ poorly laid ovolo over segmental carved gable (?); tumbled over fillet window head shoulders on porch, & closers cavetto; all stretchers King's Bench Walk London 1667 porch porch Wren; (see Gerard Lynch, p. 46) Beaumont Hall Beaumont cum Moze, c. 1670 9 - 9½ x 2 - 2 ¼ x red-orange, Flemis h (junk Flemish; segmental none none 1/2" shaped bricks shaped parapet Essex 4 - 4 ¼ starts out all- bond between contin- window heads in gable gables; 2 story; glazed header, windows) uous to corbels (cyma, closers; coping of there-after corners ovolo, cavetto) parapet done in random headers; corbelling glazing at base of parapet treated differently in various locations—some only stepped, others use shaped bricks; closers Cowcroft Farm Latimer near Chesham, 1671 Flemish ? Flemish with 3 courses brick flat jack arches jack arches, cartouche not rubbed cyma of 2-story, double pile Buckinghamshire random on front, date bricks cartouche house, cartouches glazing segmental on cartouches brick with raised initials sides, rubbed of builders & date 1671 Grove Farm House Brockdish, Norfolk 1672 red, random English English 4 course, much a ltered glazing Flemish, shaped gables, 2 wraps story, closers corners King Almshouse Worminghall, Bucks 1675 variegated Stone Flemish, none none stone dressings none none stone quoins none 2 story, hipped roof appearance irregular (light orange- brown, light random glazing) White Hart Inn Blytheburgh, Suffolk c. 1675-90 red n/a none Flemish 3 course, none none shaped gable Flemish parapets, chimney (only worked into gable; used on corbelling rebuilt; lower 16th c interior; gable) closers

Appendix 2-A 2-A-4

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments The Grange Brockdish, Norfolk 1676 red-orange unknown Flemish 4 course center none unknown ovolo, cyma did not view this with window recta building closely, molded surround two story; closers ovolo top (using lighter- colored brick) St. Peter Upon London 1677-84 red, hard- ashlar stone molded stone Flemish gauged & window jambs window window rubbed, corners, designed by Wren, Cornhill (tower) fired, much rubbed, rubbed, lighter jambs & arches; notched with window possibly with help random lighter color, corners of head string beaded jamb/head by Hook glazing brick, jambs beaded; rubbed, course corners; corners all laid in circular heads lighter lighter beaded Flemish, (stretcher/ color; corner bricks stepped, header in corners; 4 courses length), gauged string high & rubbed, lighter course brick Red House (Buxlow Knodishall Green, 1678 9 x 2¼ - 2 3/8 x red English (rear), beveled, Flemish [?] 3 course, cove, windows: none, shaped brick all gables shaped Manor) Suffolk 4¼ - 4 ½ Flemish stretchers stepped plaster segmental heads; except to carved parapets except (front) (2 levels) cornice, door: chamfered shape kitchen gable which likely later jambs chamfered is straight with alteration front door tumbled shoulders; jamb kitchen chimney has tumbled shoulders; niche in 2-story porch tower; closers Winnock Alsmhouse Colchester, Essex 1678 red, all-glazed now stuccoed now stuccoed Flemish, all- brick brick flat jack arches; door & door & not rubbed brick 2 story, center- header glazed header, entablatu cornice molded window window frontispiece, front gable; no especially re carved with frontispiece; arches, arches, presumably closers ?; pilasters above sting parapet windows in rear string string carved; course; above segmental but course course entablature/ tympanum of now blocked cornice center pediment largely all- header bond St. Mary Magdalene Willen, 1679 Flemish stone Flemish stone stone dressings stone quoins grapevine Buckinghamshire Seymour Almshouses Langley Marish, 1679 red-brown, Flemish beveled Flemish, 2 courses stuccoed none none not rubbed molded gable pediments top of Buckinghamshire random irregular surrounds coping gables, but with glazing straight gable parapets Darsham House, Darsham, Suffolk 1679 9 - 9¼ x 2 1/8 x 4 red-orange, 2 course, Flemish header 18th c 2nd floor, jack arches, jack not rubbed 1/2", cavetto, ovolo, shaped gable period I ¼ - 4 ½ very little cavetto & bond, 4- molded segmental top, but these arches, grapevine quirked cyma parapets; rear glazing ovolo course brick; bottom cut flat may be 18th but these façade dates to (bottom brick later; first floor century may be early 18th c; closers course parapet jack arches but 18th slightly along long may be 18th c century quirked wall of cyma) same date Manor House Rampton, c. 1680 9 - 9 1/8 x 2 ¼ - 2 red-orange 1/1 to 1/4 stepped 1-to-1 to 1-to-4 running pediment over ovolo in none not rubbed 1/2" to pediment gables rebuilt, were Cambridgeshire ¾ x 4 bond bond, 3 window pediment 3/4" ovolo, ovolo & originally shaped; course, cyma used in tile used as fillet in stepped corbels—all pediment profile; 2 presumed story; closers carved Yavington Mead Ovington, Hampshire c. 1680 orange-red English stepped, Flemish, with 4 courses wooden rebuilt, flat jack none none brick quoins none 2 story, hipped roof with glazing in headers some attempt modillion arches some areas at glazed headers on front Merchant’s House Swaffham Bulbeck, 1680s 8½ - 8 ¾ x 2 x 4 light yellow F lemish, 18th c segmental window window not rubbed 3/8" to none shaped gable Cambridgeshire – 4¼ w/ red 3 course, cornice window arch, arch arch ½" parapets; stepped headers; arch stepped gauged & rubbed corbelling; 2 story; orange w/ closers glazed header

Appendix 2-A 2-A-5

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Town Hall Amersham, 1682 red Flemish stone, molded Flemish, with stone wooden flat jack arches, arches arches stone quoins 2 story, hipped roof Buckinghamshire glazed headers modillion keystone; with flat deck, in second compass arches cupola story on ground floor with keystone Almshouse Farley, Wiltshire 1682 red with some Flemish stepped Flemish 3 courses plastered segmental light none not rubbed two-story with random cove arches, stretcher rubbing of wings, hipped roof glazing length with window upper glazed jambs header; 2nd story, flat jack arches, header height Ward’s Hospital Buntingford, 1684 red-brown, Flemish, ovolo, 1 Flemish stone stone, stone dressings none none stone quoins tight joints two story, stone Hertforshire random irregular course? modillion frontispiece, glazing hipped roof; may have been designed by Robert Hook Cary Almshouse Halesworth, Suffolk 1686 8½ - 8 ¾ x 1 7/8 red ? stepped on 1-to-3 bond; on gable, brick, none none no rubbing ovolo, shaped gable - 2 1/8 x 4 ¼ front & rear, gables more lower dentil presumed parapets; closers none on gable random (1-to- string below carved 1 to 1-to-5) course toothing English, mid Flemish, upper largely stretchers Winwood Almshouses Quainton, 1687 red with Flemish beveled Flemish with 4 none flat jack arches jack arches; jack not rubbed grapevine main gables Buckinghamshire glazed headers glazed headers courses, with glazed string arches; joint straight parapets; on front jumps up headers in course string shaped gable over door segmental course parapets on of porch; arches, gauged & projecting porches; gauged & rubbed 1½ story units rubbed Guildhall Rochester, Kent 1687 red Flemish wooden flat jack arches, jack arches, jack quoins, grapevine back band of two-story on modillion rusticated quoins arches rubbed joint window colonnade Gibbsian architrave surround, keystone Wing, Littleland Coleshill, 1687 Flemish Flemish, turns Flemish with 3 none segmental VMS 1687 in glazed Buckinghamshire down at random courses, arches, stretcher headers in gable doorway glazed headers turns up in height, with over some windows doorway with glazed headers Friends Meetinghouse Jordans, 1688 red, glazed none visible none Flemish bond none none flat jack arches jack arches, jack not rubbed grapevine none hipped roof, 1 story Buckinghamshire headers with glazed rubbed arches, joint meeting room side, headers front door rest of building 2 jambs story (but pitch of wall same) Holy Trinity Minsterley, Shropshire 1689 orange-red, stone stone Flemish none compass stone window none none none pilasters, straight random heads, surrounds gable parapets, glazing stone buttresses dressings All Saints Farley, Wiltshire 1690 red, random English stretcher, English none on compass stone cornice none none stone quoins grapevine hipped roof, 1 story glazing cyma? body of heads, church, stone stone dressings string course on tower

Appendix 2-A 2-A-6

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Almshouse Ufford, Suffolk 1690 red, light Flemish beveled Flemish; string walls segmental not rubbed ovolo & 2 story; shaped glazing on horizontal course on raised & window arches cavetto in gable parapets front band of dark gable eaves are later (glazed parapet gables glazing; no ends— rebuilt headers in arch) glazing on lower: later back or sides stops short of corners, 4 course high, stepped; upper: 2- course high, stepped Stock Cottage Coleshill, 1692 red to orange covered with Flemish with 3 none flat jack arches jack arches, jack not rubbed perimeter of small, 2-story Buckinghamshire with glazed stucco glazed headers courses, string arches central oval dwelling headers rubbed course cartouche Ampton Almshouse I Ampton, Suffolk 1693 8¾ - 9 x 2 ¼ - 2 red none none Flemish n/a on brick, jack arches with jack arches jack rubbed brick 1/4" to much of brick 1 story; closers 3/8 x 4 3/8 front/ modillion straight tops for (no fake arches quoins (not 3/8", is carved rear with windows joints); gauged) grapevine (including walls beveled (bottom quoins; twisted crown, unclear); cornice chimney rubbed doorway has jack stacks); not arch with sure if any is straight top & molded segmental bottom 72-74 Broad St. Canterbury 1693 red, all-glazed Flem ish; all-gauged & gauged & rubbed jack arches jack not rubbed façade added 1693; header glazed header rubbed; jack arches over arches 3 story; jettied 4 courses windows; third floor; 3 cross segmental arch gables over door Congregational Norwich, Norfolk 1693 red with Flemish beveled, Flemish, 4 wood flat jack arches jack arches, jack brick quoins, grapevine backband, pilasters on front Meetinghouse random stretcher random courses, modillion on front; architraves, arches rubbed joint; lower course glazing glazing, rubbed, segmental arches pilasters, smaller of string; part lower & compass string joint for of pilaster course headed- course, pilasters, entablature molded stretchers on quoins string back & sides course, & architrave Ravensmere House Beccles, Suffolk 1694 8 5/8 - 8 ¾ x 2 red, all-glazed English stepped Flemish front 5 course, wood widely splayed jack arches, jack not rubbed 1/4", bevel, cyma, 2 story, center 1/8 - 2 ¼ x 4 ¼ - header chamfer modillion jack arches; fake string arches, [verify] grapevine cavetto all passage; shaped 4 3/8 top, cornice, joints in arches course string possibly gable parapets; bevel possibly between course molded best glazed headers bottom; later floors 1 & 2 between used on front, then front on front & floors 1 & on gable facing string gable 2 on front secondary street, course & gable modestly glazed on stops rear & secondary short of gable, until supply corners; ran out; closers front string course & lower gable string course gauged & rubbed; upper gable string course not

Appendix 2-A 2-A-7

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Black Swan (4-Corner Stratford St. Andrew, last 8 ½ - 8 ¾ x 2 x 4 red, all glazed English beveled Flemish, all- 3 course, frame long n/a none none not rubbed ovolo & frame house with Cottage) Suffolk quarter - 4¼ header stops glazed header stepped, walls on gable chamfered shaped parapet 17th c about 10' up about 10 stretcher brick carved gables; 2 story, above grade feet s, stop closers short of corners House, corner High Saxmundham, Suffolk late 17th c now painted Flemish beveled Flemish 3 course, n/a seemingly none rubbing not ovolo, possibly brickwork painted St. & Chantry Rd. stepped; none evident molded rendering some stops traits unclear; short of frame building with corners shaped parapet gable; 2 story; closers Dun Cow Swainsthorpe, Norfolk late 17th c 9 - 9½ x 2 1/8 – red, random English beveled 3 English 3 course, brick, segmental seemingly none no rubbing 1/4" to ovolos in 2 story; shaped 2¼ x 4½ - 4 ¾ glazing walls, stepped Flemish, toothed window heads none, 5/8" chimney & gable parapets; on secondary stepped; band although grapevine ovolos & closers gable extend to arches may cavettos in corners have gable (no smoother corbels— string bricks than possibly course elsewhere carved between floors 1/2 or on gables) Almshouse Cottered, Hertfordshire c. 1700 orange/red, Flemish; stepped Flemish, all- instead brick, segmental, rubbed none, or stone quoins grapevine none 1 story; clipped all-glazed random glazed header, of string modillion stretcher high, arches, very little gable; closers header glazing using darker course many headers jambs reds for wall glazed (made of glazing at steps out lighter times; glazing for the brick) used to top eight suggest courses pilasters or below brackets cornice— flanking front 2 bands door of glazed headers separate d by stretcher course at base of this feature, rest all- glazed header Flemish Bellgable House Wilburton, c. 1700 red Flemish stepped Flemish 3 course, plaster flat jack arches jack arches jack 2 story, closers Cambridgeshire Flemish, cove front arches stepped; only runs to corner; no string on back wall

Appendix 2-A 2-A-8

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Berkeley Hospital Worcester 1702 light red, now stuccoed projecting Flemish, chapel— wood, no arches over none none stone or none 1-story chapel— lightly glazed band, now lightly glazed stone or modillion openings stucco hipped roof, flared headers stuccoed headers stucco on chapel; quoins eaves; almshouses 1 brick story, gabled, modillion without parapets; on alms- closers; £6000 houses provided in will of Robert Beverley, esq. of Spetchley; will proved 13 Dec. 1692; building commenced as of 1700; date on chapel 1703 Fisherman's Hospital Great Yarmouth, 1702 red, largely Flemish (long beveled (long Flemish, none wood wide casements none none stone quoins chamfered 1 story shaped Norfolk all-glazed walls only) walls only) largely all- cornice jammed against water table gable parapet; header glazed headers main cornice on long closers façade wall; segmental head on gable The Chain Sandwich, Kent 1703 yellow, some none n/a Flemish none modern segmental seemingly seemingly not rubbed 2 story with red cast wood arches, square none none board top over (perhaps openings originally had none) Mills Almshouse Framlingham, Suffolk 1703 red, all-glazed English beveled Flemish with 4 wood flat jack arches, string, jack string, not rubbed chamfered 2-story, hipped header stretcher glazed headers courses, modillion gauged & rubbed arches jack bricks roof Flemish arches with molded or projectin g cap, rubbed, gauged Calthorpe Cottage, Ampton, Suffolk 1705 8¾- 9 x 2 - 2¼ x red flint beveled [may Flemish 3 course, none rubbed window none not rubbed 1/4" to 3 course cyma straight gable originally a school 4 be stepped on Flemish, (exposed segmental arches 7/16" was carved, parapets; closers gables—ck] stepped; rafter window arches (generally unclear how runs to ends) 1/4") chamfered corner water table fashioned Presbyterian Chapel Bury St. Edmunds, 1711 red, lighter Flemish stone Flemish molded compass window window window parapet cornice on Suffolk orange bricks brick heads, gauged & arches, arches, long, front wall, for dressing rubbed rubbed frontis- pilasters, 1 story pilasters, etc., dressings to piece little to no openings, pilasters glazing frontispiece All Saints Trusley, Derbyshire 1713 stone Flemish stone stone dressings stone quoins

Pallant House Chichester, West 1713 red Flemish cyma Flemish 3 brick flat jack arches jack arches, jack brick quoins, soffit of jack Sussex` courses, with ogee soffits quoins, arches rubbed arches; soffit rubbed string of string course Quaker Cottage Beccles, Suffolk 1715 9 - 9¼ x 2 - 2 ¼ x orange-red; n/a none Flemish bond 3 course, brick, later later segmental stretchers none not rubbed 1/4" to ovolo & fillet, 2 story; shaped 4 3/8 - 4 ½ all-glazed (all-glazed all-glazed arches in body 7/16" cavetto & fillet gable parapets; headers header) header show both perhaps closers Flemish, striations molded stops caused by short of coarse corners rubbing when green

Appendix 2-A 2-A-9

Joint Molded or String Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall Course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Darsham House, Darsham, Suffolk 1720s 9¼ x 2 1/8 x 4 orange beveled, header bond upper none segmental head water table, water rubbed 1/4" - 3/8" chamfered this re-made period II 5/8 dressing gauged & (all-glazed) string over windows, dressings to table, grapevine water table elevation is bricks, all- rubbed course 4 gauged & rubbed openings, window depicted on a glazed header course, corners; arches, 1738/39 plat; brick stepped string string size measured on twice; course course service wing; 2 lower story; garden front string added to earlier course 3 building; closers course, stepped; stop short of corners, both gauged & rubbed Cross Farmhouse Quainton, 1723 red with ? ? Flemish with 4 brick segmental with, window none not rubbed grape-vine straight gable Buckinghamshire glazed headers glazed headers courses, stretcher length jambs on joints parapet stops at with upper second center header glazed story bay; molded lower course Thomas Sherman Dedham, Suffolk 1735 yellow; red- brick pilasters, tight gauged & rubbed House orange window grapevine brick reddish dressing surrounds, orange; 2 story; bricks cornice front on earlier building, closers

Willie Graham and Carl Lounsbury Colonial Williamsburg Foundation August 20, 2002

Appendix 2-A 2-A-10 APPENDIX 2-B Brick Buildings in the Early Chesapeake

Chapter 1 APPENDIX 2-B Brick Buildings in the Early Chesapeake

Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Jamestown Fort, pit 1 Jamestown, VA before made from 1 5/8" reddish yes yes bricks shaped and Structure 165 1610 thick brick brown; trapezoidal in plan (possibly an arch to a glazing to allow for tight furnace or other outer joints; also industrial building or taper in elevation feature) to be used as arch brick; dark centers, dense bricks, undoubtedly imported Structure 110 Jamestown, VA shortly red English n/a n/a n/a n/a no no plain none foundations brew house after 1623 foundations between earthfast posts; brick chimney, possible brick nogging Structure 111 Jamestown, VA shortly kiln shows evidence lime kiln after 1623 of brick and pipe making Structure 127 Jamestown, VA 1st ¼ 17th c brick kiln Reverand Richard james City Co., VA ca. 1630 compass brick Buck site, well 1 [verify] Jamestown church Jamestown, VA 1639 - 8 1/2 - 9 x 2 3/8 x red English, on unknown unknown n/a unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown review brick (first on present 1640s 4 1/2 cobblestone fragments from location) foundations archaeology John White Building Jamestown, VA ca. 1644 8 ¼ - 8 5/8 x 3 red; random n/a English, n/a no no unknown 1/2- ¾ none site patent 1644, (Structure 163) 7/8 – 4 ½ x 2 ¼ - glazing random building down by 2 3/8 (chimney glazing 1660s; frame brick) building, 2 stories, brick foundations 7 x 3 x 1 3/8 yellow (Dutch on top of river rock (firebox liner) brick) footings; 2 brick chimneys; hearths 8 - 8 ½ x 1 ½ red two floors; pantiles (1st-floor hearth) used in chimneys;

6 7/8 x 3 3/8 x 1 red (possibly 3/8 (hearth, floor Dutch) 2 ?) Structure 17 Jamestown, VA before red English English rowhouse 1650 Structure 112, Second Jamestown, VA before red 1 story; bricking of Statehouse 1650 early earthfast dwelling; includes rear service range Structure 100 Jamestown, VA ca. 1650 English garden wall Structure 125 Jamestown, VA ca. 1650 English 2 story brick dwelling dwelling; flat roofing tiles with mortar on them may have been laid in walls

Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Structure 102 Jamestown, VA ca. 1650- red n/a n/a English n/a n/a segmental arch no no plain none reusable kiln; made Brick kiln 90 (period for opening place bricks (made of in wooden molds operation) with bottoms); made bricks, tiles Structures 1 and 2; (2 Jamestown, VA 2nd ½ 17th greenish and yellow joined houses) c bricks thought to be nogging; brick- lined cellar; flat roofing tiles, slates, and lugged pantiles were recovered St. Mary's Catholic St. Mary's City, MD 1660s red English mullion brick, molded, not virtually no chapel [check] molded (not carved builder's trench carved) inside or out John Page House Williamsburg, VA 1662 thin bricks— red English grapevine carved brick, closers; joints (Middle Plantation) Tudor proportions including struck with cartouche grapevine in cellar; with date, tile roof cavetto brick, cyma, cyma and cavetto, ovolo (corner) Structure 144 Jamestown, VA ca. 1662 8 5/8 x 2 1/2 - 2 red, random English date remains (Ludwell Statehouse 3/4 x 4 1/4 - 4 1/2 glazing speculative Group); Houses 1 and 2 Structure 144 Jamestown, VA ca. 1663 8 3/4 - 9 x 2 5/8 - red, random English stepped date remains (Ludwell Statehouse 2 7/8 x 4 3/8 - 4 glazing speculative Group); Houses 3 and 1/2 4 Structure 144 Jamestown, VA 1664/5 red, random English stepped English date remains (Ludwell Statehouse glazing speculative Group); House 5 Bacon's Castle Surry Co., VA 1665 8 ½ - 8 7/8 x 2 orange to English, stepped English, torus none segmental heads none none none buff, light torus belt decorative gable 5/16 – 2 7/8 reddish random random (belt over windows brown course, parapets; closers (most 2 3/8 – 2 brown, glazing/ walls glazing course on mortar; carved; ovolo used sparingly; ½) x 3 5/8 -4 random painted red front and shell brick in diamond-set, glazing tower), mortar, corbelling triple-stack below grade: 10 x presently grapevine chimneys with 4 ½ - 5 x 3 ½ - 4 stuccoed joints; ½" short tiled - ¾" shoulders; stucco band in chimney; bricks painted red before mortar set, joints lined white Pettus James City Co., VA ca. 1670 pale orangish slop molded; used red as part of cellar ? earthfast building Mattapony (house of St. Mary's Co., MD c. 1671 9 ¾ x 2 x 4 5/8 red, some English yes, but yes, but grapevine new house Charles Calvert, third (red) yellow may be may be described in 1672, Lord Baltimore) 18th-c 18th-c could date 6 5/8 x 3 1 3/8 replace- replace- anywhere between ment ment 1666-1672 9 x 2 ¾ x 4 (red— this may be an 18th c brick— check)

Appendix 2-B 2-B-2 Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Arlington Northampton Co., VA ca. 1676 red inside cellar grapevine; 3 story; roughcast Flemish with grayish around some grapevine white shell window openings joints mortar; with heart some decoration sections of mortar (particular ly upper floor) is tuck pointed with grapevine joint, painted red Structure 115 Jamestown, VA ca. 1676 English English 2 story brick row; slate & clay pantile roof Structure 31 Jamestown, VA ca. 1676 English cellar 2 story brick dwelling or official walls building over residence cellar; bond timber Jamestown Church Jamestown, VA ca. 1680 8 7/8 - 9 1/4 x 2 - red English unknown unknown n/a unknown cavetto mullion yes, pavers: unknown unknown carved first church burned (foundations of 2 3/8 x 4 - 4 ¼ brick, carved top lightly decorative in 1676, rebuilt; present building) rubbed; brick door width of 8 ½ x 8 ¾ x 1 red carved (cavetto/ovolo rebuilt church 3/16 (pavers, top brick base to referenced in lightly rubbed) recovered pilaster, large design from site bullnose, requirements for likely from mullion brick, 1680s Bruton this cavetto, parish Church; building; various other paver brick base to decorative recovered pilaster brick (these archeologically has suggests bricks are 5 pin holes for frontispiece orange color) stacking in kiln (pin holes not evident in remaining pavers on site) Structure 123 Jamestown, VA ca. 1680 English 1 story frame store foundations & building with brick- cellar lined cellar Second Bruton Parish Williamsburg, VA 1681-83 red jack arch over buttresses; shaped Church door; circular gable parapets; window heads

Appendix 2-B 2-B-3 Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments St. Luke's Isle of Wight Co., VA ca. 1682 8 ½ - 9 x 2 3/8 – orange-red, Flemish (2 chamfer-ed (2 Flemish in tower condition ovolo with fillets all ovolos none brick quoins grapevine; all ovolos buttresses; stepped 2 ¾ x 3 ¾ - 4 random levels) levels), (2 belt either used for doorway rubbed at corners of ½" – ¾"; carved to gable parapet ; glazing stretchers courses); does not to tower jambs; (door jamb, tower, carved yellowish shape and gothic windows English survive, or ovolo window pediment and rubbed white, rubbed modern; closers, bond, there mullions base, belt shell (rubbing the initials "CD" ovolo at never was course, mortar extends to and "TD" are bottom, a cornice probably face of brick carved into a third- ovolo, oval not shaped) floor pilaster topped window), pediment in with quoins at tower; oval chamfer the corners window in course rubbed tower with after being molded, ovolo carved bricks; ovolo mullions in windows presumably molded; ovolo door jamb; cavetto and ovolo that make up cyma in corbels carved Structure 144 Jamestown, VA 1684/5 9 x 2 ½ x 4 ¼ - 4 red, random English/ stepped English (bond unknown unknown cavetto-shaped cavetto appears to cavetto date remains (Ludwell Statehouse ½ glazing painted red (water table pattern window jamb rubbed not have mullion brick speculative, but Group); House 5 (bond pattern likely from possibly from painted red gauged carved and based on likely from 1664 period) 1665 period) work rubbed; found documentary 1665 period) associated archaeological material appears to with -ly have been built windows (conceivably 1665; rebuilt after survives from fie of 1676 in period I: 1684/5 1664/65) Jamestown Church Jamestown, VA ca. 1690 8 1/2 – 8 7/8 x 2 red, English ovolo, without English 2 course, does not circular headed; water table none not rubbed 3/8"-1/2", water table, 3-story tower tower 1/4 x 4 – 4 ½ substantial fillet. header stepped, survive alternating rubbed grapevine carved, a few appended to amount of course Flemish, stretcher/ may be existing ca. 1680 random all-glazed double header molded church; joists set glazing headers; high arch; outer on 28" – 30" contin- header glazed centers; closers ues around corners Fairfield Gloucester Co., VA 1694 8 ¾ - 9 x 4 1/8 – reddish Flemish; deep appears Flemish, all- 3 course wooden, flat jack arches, yes (rubbed presum- unknown grapevine ovolo water lightly corbelled 4 ¼ (most 4 ¼) x orange to foundations, stepped in glazed glazed modillion proportioned for face on ably joint, off table brick eaves; some 2 3/4 purple, glazed set on packed photo; ovolo headers (although sash windows ovolo arches white and jamb internal cellar walls headers brick dust, discovered date of bricks), mortar, ½ bricks Flemish bond with molded jamb about 2 feet archaeology- cornice presumably - 5/8, shell discovered neat, undercut brick measure 8 deep caly unknown) arches archaeological joints; hipped roof, 3/8" x 2 ½ x 4 1/8 ly; conceivably triple diamond- windows stack chimney, date remodeled brick; 2 story; 18th c building destroyed by fire 1897, very wide builder's trench outside foundations Structure 144 Jamestown, VA ca. 1694 9 x 2 ½ - 2 ¾ x 4 red rubbed houses remained in (Ludwell Statehouse ¼ - 4 ½ (porch) hearth ruins at least until Group); remodeling bricks in 1694, seemingly Houses 3 and 4, new end was soon additions to Houses 3 chimneys remodeled and 4 (Houses 3A and 4A)

Appendix 2-B 2-B-4 Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments Wren Building Williamsburg, VA 1695 – 9 – 9 1/8 x 4 ¼ - orange-red, English beveled & first five 3 course, replaced; gauged & rubbed water table, jack rubbed grapevine; carved water bldg accounts from 1697 4 ½ x 2 ¼ - 2 1/2 random light rubbed, courses are stepped, originally jack arch over course arches, grayish table 1694 thru April 16, (walls up, glazing rubbed course Flemish, Flemish seems to windows below water compass white shell (chamfered), 1697 £3,889.1.10; roof nearly below switches to bond, have had a (rubbed table, arch, belt mortar; scribe mark shell for lime cost finished English above; gauged & balustrade segmental arches corners, course; ½" – ¾", still evident £169.3.9 ½; bricks by April first floor of rubbed, parapet; over cellar window gauged although were 14 shilling/ 16, 1697) pavilion laid capped lead windows, with dressings, joints aiming for thousand, bricks in Flemish, with lead gutters upper headers belt course, average ½", some made on site by second floor that was glazed); compass all arches 3/32" 1 ½" Daniel Parke, English painted gauged & rubbed member of the red- over front door Council ; Thos. brown Hadley of England recruited by John Blair as "surveyor" (or overseer of construction); closers, a few of which were faked by chiseling joints & grouting them after laid; center pavilion appears to be original; 3 story (?) with M-roof gables on rear; hipped roof; bond timbers; put log holes for scaffolding 14-15 rows high, on an 8' bay system Robert Beverley Site Jamestown, VA 1690s 8 ½ x 4 x 2 3/8 red, glazing In APVA collection, (east of LSG— recovered in 1950s Structure 144) 6 x 2 ½ x 1 3/8 red (firebox or hearth paving? ) (catalog no. 101: 98-40) Carvill Hall Kent Co., MD ca. 1695- red; all-glazed Flemish stepped Flemish 3-course check segmental head none none not rubbed none 2 story with partial 1709 headers high, photos windows and cellar and garret; Flemish, doorway porch tower; stops closers short of corners; 2 levels on gables Bricks in display case Jamestown, VA 17th c ? red molded water 2 loose cove brick, carved table brick, bricks chamfered includes a either for brick fillet and 2 a cornice, coves chimney cap, gable corbelling, or frontispiece. one a bevel, one a cove and fillet; both gauged and rubbed Willson Site (John Anne Arundel County, c. 1700 4 x 2 ¼ x 9 3/8 red, bricks English probably a frame Talbot House) MD heavily glazed building (now an archaeological site)

Appendix 2-B 2-B-5 Joint Molded or String- Window Size & Carved Name Location Date Brick Size Brick Color Plinth Water Table Wall course Cornice Doorway Rubbing Gauging Corner Type Brick Comments St. Peter's Parish New Kent Co., VA 1701-03 red English English on gable wood segmental none none not rubbed 1 story; shaped Church cornice window heads gable parapets; buttresses; Cornelius Hall, bricklayer Jail Williamsburg, VA 1702 red, all-glazed Flemish, all- header glazed header Yeocomico Church Westmoreland Co., VA 1703-06 Governor's Palace Williamsburg, VA 1706-1722 red, all-glazed [check] beveled Flemish, all- probably jack probably probably grapevine, 2 story; section of (moved in headers glazed header arches arches; arches white wall between west 1714) rubbed door & window corners survived intact Bruton Parish Church Williamsburg, VA 1711-15 8 ¾ - 8 7/8 x 2 ¾ red; all-glazed Flemish beveled, Flemish, all- none wood, circular head closes, rubbed grapevine; beveled water possibly originally - 2 5/8 x 4 5/8 header Flemish glazed header modillion windows window tan, shell, table with parapeted (painted dressings, 5/8" – ¾" gables; had gable red- corners "ornaments;" brown) James Morris, undertaker, rubbed closers Middle (Christ) Middlesex Co., VA 1712 circular head walls rebuilt above Church windows windows in 19th/20th centuries St. Luke's, Wye near Centerville, Queen 1717-22 red; all-glazed chamfer-ed, 1 Flemish west none wood circular head none none not rubbed 16 foot pitch; Anne's Co., MD header in course gable, side windows foundations 3-brick Flemish gable, walls English thick, 2 ½ bricks random [east gable thick water table to glazing on needs top of windows; 2 side walls verification] brick thick above windows; sash windows Vauter's Church Essex Co., VA ca. 1719 red, all-glazed Flemish, all- wood, circular head header glazed header modillion windows Sotterley Period II St. Mary's Co., MD ca. 1720 red, all-glazed Flemish grapevine frame addition to header [ck] (cellar) inside joints, inside an earthfast inside cellar and out and out; building; brickwork white, shell includes cellar Merchant's Hope Prince George County, ca. 1725 7 7/8 – 8 ½ x 2 red, all glazed English, beveled, Flemish all 4 none wood, circular head yes yes yes (lighter grapevine, beveled water Church VA 1/8 x 2 3/8 x 4 – 4 header random rubbed, not walls, all- modillion windows, gauged brick) buff color, table, beveled ¼ [verify] glazing gauged, glazed header and rubbed, shell bricks below Flemish [verify] rubbed mortar, windows dressings; jack ½"-3/4" arch over south door, gauged and rubbed Rosewell Gloucester Co., VA 1726-37 red English to Flemish gauged- gauged-and- yes yes rubbed, white, carved arch bricks grade, and- rubbed closers shell frontispieces, numbered on sides Flemish above rubbed. segmental arches carving in in chalk, taper grade carved (2 with limestone stringcourse, slightly for levels) keystones water table ? additional mortar at rear Homewood's Lot, Providence, Anne 1730s 9 5/8 x 4 ½ x 1 ovolo brick destroyed by `770s, third building on site Arundel Co., MD 7/8 found in ½ of building is archaeology cellared Little Brice House Prince George Street, 1738-39 8 5/8 x 3 ¾ x 2 ½ red Flemish, stepped water Flemish, n/a wood, not circular arch none none no rubbing; grapevine none stucco band below Annapolis, MD random table random modillion over cellar closers are joint, chimney caps; slab glazing glazing windows, used white chimneys; gambrel segmental floor 1 roof; 1 story

Willie Graham and Carl Lounsbury Colonial Williamsburg Foundation August 21, 2002

Appendix 2-B 2-B-6 CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY AND CARTOGRAPHIC RECORD ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCUTRE 144

from consideration some documents that have Assumptions long been consulted in writing the history of the Structure 144 row. Three documents that ritten records pertaining to James- meet the test, while not conclusive, appear to town Island have misled generations support the oldest interpretation of all, that Wof historians and archaeologists who House 5 (the large, easternmost unit) was the tried to use them to identify the builders and colony’s first purpose-built statehouse erected owners of the city’s several celebrated row- in 1665. One of the documents that failed the houses—Structure 1/2, Structure 17, Structure test give rise to an intriguing suggestion that 115, (undiscovered) “Berkeley Row,” and most somewhere in the vicinity of Structure 144 of all Structure 144 (the so-called Ludwell there remains to be discovered another Statehouse Group). Four circumstances have rowhouse of three units, called here “Berkeley’s contributed to this confusion: (1) the records Row.” are incomplete, (2) some of the same entrepre- neurs built or bought into more than one rowhouse, notably Philip Ludwell I, Thomas Records with demonstrated links to Woodhouse, Col. Nathaniel Bacon, and prob- Structure 144 ably William Sherwood, (3) individual houses in several rows measured the same 20 by 40 feet, Three can be authenticated, a 1681 plat pre- in part because most were designed in accor- pared by John Soane for William Sherwood, a dance with requirements specified in the Town 1694 land grant to Phillip Ludwell, and a 1683 Building Act of December 1662, and (4) some patent to Edward Chilton. documents almost certainly refer to rowhouses that archaeologists have not yet found or Plat by John Soane, August 15, 1681 excavated. [Ambler ms. 134]

Too often researchers have been content to John Baldwin patented a 28.5 acre tract of land accept the validity of deeds or patents if the adjoining the isthmus at the western end of the metes and bounds appear to fit a site or the island on October 4, 1656 [Patent Book. 4, p. recorded description matches excavated 88; Ambler ms. 5]. Baldwin willed the property foundations. to a man named John Fulcher, who deeded it to William Sherwood on October 22, 1677. We have not let ourselves make such easy Sherwood repatented the land on April 23, assumptions in preparing this report.Instead, 1681 [Patent Bk. 7, p.97] and engaged John we worked to a rule suggested by Seth Mallios Soane to survey it the same year. Soane’s plat of the APVA Rediscovery team following a (fig. 1) is the critical piece of cartographic meeting with him and other members of Bill evidence that locates the Pitch and Tar Swamp Kelso’s staff on February 14, 2001, namely, in relation to other recognizable landmarks. that we admit into evidence only those documents that (1) can be indisputably located on The surveyor’s careful drawing depicts a the ground by measurement from one or more stretch of marshy shore along Back River and a recognizable landscape features or from fully series of ridges that jut into it. Despite erosion verified archaeological remains nearby and (2) over the centuries, the same ridges are easily such other documents as can be irrefutably recognizable on a succession of later maps from linked to records of the first kind. Rigorous the 1781 Desandrouins Map (fig. 2) to the application of these standards has eliminated Jamestown Island planetable resurvey of

Chapter 3 3-1 Figure 1. Plat by John Soane for William Sherwood, 18 August 1681. Chapter 3 3-2 1905 by D. B. Wainwright (fig. 3), to a modern foundations of Structure 144, we need to rendering recently scaled and redrawn by consult a third document, Edward Chilton’s members of the archaeological research staff at patent for an adjoining piece of property. Colonial Williamsburg (see Appendix 3-G).

The Sherwood patent [see Appendix 3-A], to Patent to Edward Chilton, April 16, 1683 which the Soane plat was attached, takes its [Patent Book 7, p. 292] bearings from these familiar landforms, specifically by reference to “the back river Marsh,” “a Eleven years before the date of Philip Ludwell’s great slash issuing into the back river,” and “a grant, Edward Chilton patented 2.1 acres along branch of pitch and Tarr swamp.” the James River west of the church [see Appen- dix 3C]. The fact that the patent mentions The Sherwood documents do not locate Struc- specifically “Colo Philip Ludwells corner stake” ture 144 by themselves. They do show us— and describes the boundary as running “partly more or less—where to start the metes and along his Honors line” tells us that Ludwell’s bounds in a land grant made to Phillip Ludwell father had owned his adjoining property more in 1694. than a decade prior to the date of his land grant, 1694. This chronology makes sense of a Grant to Phillip Ludwell II, April 20, curious choice of words in that document, the 1694 [Patent. Book 8, p. 315] otherwise inexplicable use of the possessive adjective “his” in describing Ludwell’s “three This document [see Appendix 3-B] records a Brick houses,” buildings he obviously already grant to Phillip Ludwell of 1.5 acres laying owned. The 1694 grant must therefore have adjacent to—“adjoining”—a row of five houses, renewed and confirmed an acquisition made presumably, although not yet incontrovertibly, prior to 1683 for which no record remains. Structure 144. The grant explains that Ludwell did not own all five structures, just “three Brick What makes Chilton’s grant a critical link in houses between” the other two, “the State locating Structure 144 on the ground are the house and Country house.” The middle three metes and bounds that share a line with were said to be ruinous. Ludwell’s property on the north and then run to the “James river bank and along under ye The bounds to the Ludwell grant begin “Neare said Hill [the bank along the shoreline] to a Pitch and Tarr swamp” and run south 8 chains stake neer ye brick fort.” These were fortifica- past “the Eastrmost End” of Ludwell’s three tions built in 1673 to protect Jamestown Island houses. Although the Soane plat helps us place from the Dutch warships during the Third the property somewhere “neare” the swamp, Anglo-Dutch War. Their remains were appar- the starting point can not be located precisely. ently rebuilt or the site reused for another gun We would therefore be reasoning in circles if we battery constructed during the American jumped to the conclusion that the 8 chains Revolution. That one appears on the 1781 running south from this unknown stake neces- Desandrouins Map (fig. 1) more or less in this sarily bring the boundary line to Structure 144 location. We use the words “apparently” and thereby making Ludwell’s three houses one and “more or less” advisedly. It has to be acknowl- the same as the excavated foundations of edged that the 1673 brick fort has not been Houses 2, 3, and 4. Conceivably there could located precisely, nor has it been indepen- have been another rowhouse, still undiscov- dently confirmed that the gun emplacement ered, somewhere nearby. In fact, as explained shown on the Desandrouins Map was built on below, we now know that “Berkeley’s row” was top of the 17th-century fort. That is a reason- located somewhere in the immediate vicinity of able assumption given the evidence. A plat Structure 144. We need to take every precau- accompanying the Reverend John Clayton’s tion to avoid confusion between the known site narrative of 1688 [Force Tracts, Vol. III, Bk.12, and the other one, which still remains to be pp.23-24] places the brick fort in a low lying located. swale in this immediate vicinity. Furthermore, it is indisputable that the fort anchored the To make a conclusive connection between southwestern corner of the Chilton lot, and, Phillip Ludwell’s three brick houses and the knowing the size of lots between his tract and

Chapter 3 3-3 Figure 2. Jean-Nicholas Desandrouins map, “Plan duterein a la Rive Gauche de la Riviere de James,” 1781-82. Chapter 3 3-4 Figure 3. D. B. Wainwright, detail, Jamestown Island planetable resurvey of 1905. Chapter 3 3-5 the church, we can account for property William Berkeley used to sell “three brick house holdings that otherwise fill in this corner of the which I there built,” the easternmost one, being town. The area can only be stretched or com- “the late statehouse,” to Thomas Woodhouse, pressed so much. Nevertheless, the location of “the middle brick house” [“the old statehouse”] “ye brick fort” referenced in the Chilton patent to Francis Morrison, and “the westernmost of is somewhat elastic. Consequently, so is the the three brick houses” to Richard Bennett. location of the Ludwell property. Berkeley is explicit on this point: that he built a row of three houses, not four. The archaeologi- All things considered, we believe the tolerances cal evidence is clear as well. The four houses are sufficiently small to make a strong case that that comprised Structure 144 before the William Sherwood’s patent to the north of addition of House 5 were built in pairs, not Phillip Ludwell’s property and Chilton’s patent triplets. There is no logical or physical way to to the south give us two recognizable land- make Berkeley’s row of three fit the foundations marks—a “slash” on Pitch and Tar Swamp and that Jamie May and her crew uncovered in the the brick fort of 1673—that together serve as last two field seasons at Structure 144. bookends at the upper and lower ends of Ludwell’s 1.5 acre tract. Structure 144 is In short, these recent excavations have opened located on that property. Furthermore, the our eyes to the true significance of these deeds boundaries can be drawn through the party of sale: They describe another rowhouse walls separating Houses 1 and 2 and Houses 4 altogether—“Berkeley’s Row”—built somewhere and 5, thus identifying Ludwell’s “three Brick nearby between 1642 when Berkeley came to houses” (in “Ruins” in 1694) as Houses 2-3-4 Virginia and 1655 when he sold them to between the “Country house” (House 1) on the Morrison, Woodhouse, and Bennett. The west and the “State house” (House 5) on the question that APVA archaeologists should be east. asking now is, Where was this earlier row located?

Records not related to Structure Carl Lounsbury explains in his memorandum, 144 “Documents Pertaining to the Berkeley Row, Jamestown” [Appendix 3-D] and Martha McCartney in her “Response to APVA Research The search for Jamestown’s statehouses has Queries” [Appendix 3-E] that another misun- often encouraged overeager researchers to derstood document may help in the search for assume the veracity of a number of documents the three-house row that Berkeley built some- that cannot be linked to Structure 144 using the where along the shore. criteria that we have applied in this report. Three deserve special mention because, while they have no bearing on the history of Struc- Patent to Thomas Ludwell and Thomas ture 144, they do reveal other important Stegg II, January 1, 1667 [Patent Book 6, information about the town and its civic p. 223] buildings. Until now, this patent was mistakenly associ- Deeds of sale, Sir William Berkeley to ated with Structure 144 by us and others and Francis Morrison, Thomas Woodhouse, with Structure 17 by William Rieley. Cary and Richard Bennett, March 24 and 30, Carson’s memorandum, “Structures 17 and 1655 [McIlwaine 1924: 503; Hening, Vol. 144” [Appendix 3-F] and McCartney’s “Re- 1, 407] sponse” [Appendix 3-E] demonstrate why any connection with the three-unit Structure 17 If the recent APVA excavations on the Struc- rowhouse is impossible. Similarly, our own ture 144 site had accomplished nothing else, earlier efforts to force fit the 1667 patent to the they would have earned high marks for disen- Structure 144 property ultimately proved tangling these three documents from the unconvincing. Furthermore, and most history of that rowhouse once and for all. tellingly, the 1667 document fails to meet our These 1655 deeds were the instruments that two fundamental requirements for acceptance:

Chapter 3 3-6 it can not be firmly tied to any recognizable Woodhouse, owner of the easternmost house in landmark despite its explicit metes and bounds, the row, received payment for hosting the nor is it linked to any other document so fixed. General Court in 1656, thus confirming the In other words, its location floats up and down statement in the Baldwin patent, and again four the shoreline. Figure 1 in McCartney’s “Re- years later in 1660. Clearly the evidence of the sponse” [Appendix 3-E, p. 16] shows just how Baldwin patent throws light on the trio of far and how freely it will continue to float until buildings that Berkeley built, not on Structure an archaeological survey runs it to ground. 144, which had not yet been constructed.

The Ludwell-Stegg patent makes such a survey easier. The “discovery” of the Berkeley Row by logical deduction has now correctly identified Archaeological Evidence Informed by the the building that the 1667 patent describes. It Documentary Record records one in a series of property transfers that Lounsbury has shown comprise the Now that we have eliminated the principal red ownership history of this earlier row [Appendix herrings that always before have hampered a 3-D]. Therefore, its measured boundaries ought reconciliation between the physical evidence to be useful in narrowing down the area to be and the historical record, is it possible to write surveyed in search of Berkeley’s rowhouse. a comprehensive history of Structure 144 from beginning to end? The answer is no, not yet, not an account that is likely to withstand Patent to John Baldwin, October 4, 1656 further excavations at Houses 3 and 4, at the [Patent Book 4, p. 88; Ambler ms. 5] additions to both, 3A and 4A, and on the sites of separate but associated buildings that we John Baldwin’s 1656 patent for a tract of 28.5 know were standing nearby. The final chapter acres, which eventually ended up in William in this 100-year old story still waits on addi- Sherwood’s hands (see above), is important for tional archaeological research (see Recommen- another reason besides helping to identify land dations in Appendix 1-D). forms at the extreme western end of the island. The boundary description also mentions a Nevertheless, the broad outline of the narrative “State House” by name and, in effect, triangu- is clearer now than ever before.. For that lates its location between “the Slash” (an inlet reason, a summary interpretation based on all from the Back River) and an adjoining property the information available at this time is worth owned by “Mr. James,” a parcel that surveyor attempting if for no other reason that to call John Soane pictures on the plat he drew for attention to the remaining gaps in the story. Sherwood in 1681 (see above). The pertinent passage reads as follows: …and thus “Eastly We offer a preferred sequence of building and upon Mr. James’s Land, North upon the back rebuilding and several alternatives to remind river & the Land hereafter mentioned, West readers that the evidence is still open to more upon the river, and South upon the Slash which than one interpretation. lyeth between the State House & the said Mr. James.” Period I (ca. 1663) This piece of verbal mapping tells us two things of importance, first, that the building being Houses 1 and 2 used as the colony’s statehouse in 1656 was were erected nowhere near Structure 17 farther down the making a two-unit shore. Second, we now realize that the Baldwin row. Their form, patent refers to the Berkeley Row where only size, and material the year before, in 1655, two houses were conform to the Town Building Act of December identified as statehouses, one “old” and the 1662. Except for early seventeenth-century other the “late” or current seat of government. armaments stored in the cellars under Houses Lounsbury’s history of the Berkeley Row 1A/2A (which are treated as later additions to (Appendix 3-D) explains that Thomas Houses 1 and 2 in this interpretation), artifacts

Chapter 3 3-7 from the site do not support an earlier date of Period III (1664/5) construction. A well lying off the west gable of House 1 indicates that the row began with this It is difficult to say from the physical evidence structure and never extended farther toward which came next, House 5 or the additions to the river. Houses 1 and 2 (designated Houses 1A and 2A). here are only a dozen years when those addi- The plans of these buildings—two main ground tions are likely to have been built, something floor rooms, both heated, and both entered between 1663/4 after the main houses were from a lobby (probably containing a stair- finished and 1676 when House 2 and maybe case)—suggest that they were intended as House I were destroyed in Bacon’s Rebellion. dwellings. It should also be noted that the rear House 2 was never rebuilt or remained ruinous walls of Houses 1 and 2 were rebuilt in the to and probably after 1694. 2A could not have twentieth century, thus obstructing the rela- been built as an extension to a burned out shell. tionship between them and their so-called Therefore, 1A and 2A, the pair, must have been additions. Consequently, we can only assume added prior to 1676. the latter were added as a two-story range of back rooms, not separate 20 by 40 ft. houses in But did they predate House 5? It can be persua- their own right. sively argued that the plan of House 5 is a late contrivance for Virginia, especially given the Period II (soon after Period I and before regularity of its layout. Although little is known 1664/5 ) about the fenestration, it otherwise has perfectly symmetrical front and rear façade. The front porch is centered and so are the stair tower and the chimneys on the rear. If one assumes a passage on the first floor, then the plan is more regular than the most refined Georgian house of the next century. All these Very soon after Houses 1 and 2 were built, a features suggest a later, rather than an earlier second pair, Houses 3 and 4, followed. The building. manner in which the buildings butt and share foundations with the original east gable of Notwithstanding architectural features that House 2 leaves no doubt as to which came first. remain uncomfortably anomalous and anach- Furthermore, mortar analysis demonstrates ronistic, now that we are satisfied that the 1694 that they were built in two separate campaigns Ludwell patent can be associated with Struc- and by different hands (the masons who raised ture 144, House 5, designated “the State House” the second pair used a more sophisticated in that document, could well have been the method of laying bricks by regulating the next addition to the row. If so, construction amount of lime in the mortar mix depending on took place sometime after a committee of whether it was to be near the interior or exte- burgesses was appointed “to treat with the rior surface of the wall). The second pair of governor about a statehouse” shortly before houses again conforms to the legislative September 17, 1663 [McIlwaine, 1914, p. 25] mandate, and the plans of all four are nearly and a report that Secretary Thomas Ludwell identical. These similarities suggest that not sent to London eighteen months later (April 10, much time had passed between the building of 1665) that they had “begun a town of brick and the two parts, and that the slightly newer have allreddy built enough to accommodate structures were also intended as dwellings. both the publique affairs of ye country and to being a factory for merchants” [Calendar of A date for construction is arrived at by deduction: Documentary evidence indicates that Period III build occurred by 1664/5. So Houses 3 and 4 must have been standing before the next building campaign could be undertaken.

Chapter 3 3-8 State Papers, America and West Indies 5, façade (a quite unusual feat for the seventeenth #975]. House 5, if its purpose was indeed century), and the front porch perfectly aligns public affairs, seems most likely to have been with the one known interior partition. It seems put up in the months after September 1663. more than fortuitous that a symmetrical exterior could have worked so well with a plan The possibility remains, however remote, that not made for it. In short, the appendages this first purpose built meeting place for the appear to be integral to the original design of Assembly was not House 5 in Structure 144, House 5. but Structure 112, remodeled on a plan so similar to the eventual plan of House 5 as to be Period IV (after 1664, probably before indistinguishable from it in several recorded 1685) references to activities that took place there. To make that scenario work and still give Additions were built onto the north side of credence to the Ludwell patent that calls House Houses 1 and 2, here numbered Houses 1A and 5 “the State House” in 1694, one has to believe 2A. Because the wall of House 3A abuts 2A, that the burgesses abandoned Structure 112 Houses 1A and 2A must have been in place after its destruction in Bacon’s Rebellion and before additions were made to Houses 3 and 4 built a new and almost identical statehouse in (see Period VI). Undoubtedly Period IV had to 1684/5 attached to the eastern end of the occur before Houses 1 and 2 fell into ruin, Structure 144 rowhouse (see Period IV below). presumably casualties of Bacon’s Rebellion in While acknowledging the validity of this alter- 1676. native interpretation, on balance we find the scenario less convincing than the simpler Were Houses 1A-4A substantial additions to the hypothesis that House 5 was the colony’s older dwellings they adjoined, or were they a statehouse before and after Bacon’s Rebellion. separate row of four 20 by 40 ft. buildings that If correct, then House 5 was almost certainly simply shared party walls with the houses to erected during the great Jamestown rebuilding the south? The 1694 Ludwell patent can be read of 1664/5 despite an attention to symmetry as evidence that they were a subordinate range and the presence of a center passage that look of back rooms to the houses in front. His thirty years later. property was said to enclose “my three ruins” and was bracketed by the statehouse at one end It should be noted that the porch on House 5 and a country house at the other. No other and the rear stair tower are not bonded to the buildings were mentioned. It seems likely that main walls and that the mortar used in both the A-buildings would have been singled out appendages does not precisely match the had they been separate structures. mortar mix in the adjoining work. In and of themselves these anomalies do not prove that Therefore, assuming the rear rooms to be the towers were secondary to the construction additions, they seem to have supplied various of House 5. Lack of bonding is often observed service functions that were not separately even in original features, and irregularities in accommodated in the original plans. Houses 1A mortar recipes is commonplace as well. But and 2A appear to have cellar kitchens. Because combined, these two irregularities should give the new construction doubled the size of each us pause. Plausibly the porch and stair towers house, the additions may have provided room were either added during the construction for private sleeping chambers, store rooms, or process or soon thereafter. There are two social spaces for entertainment. Alternatively, reasons to expect these features on this build- one or more of the houses may have changed ing. First, assuming it to be the colony’s statehouse, documents tell us that it had a porch prior to its destruction in 1676. Second, the towers themselves are exactly centered on their respective elevations. The stair tower continues the symmetry of the rear

Chapter 3 3-9 functions by this time, becoming taverns, jails, or some such.

At this time it seems likely that both Houses 1 and 2 were under the same ownership since they received similar and contemporaneous additions. However, by 1694, House 1 was called same campaign since their shared chimneys a “country house,” while house 2 was in private mimic those in the newly repaired and re- possession. planned front blocks.

Bacon’s Rebellion (September 19, 1676) Why was House 2 not repaired at this same time, if all three were owned by Ludwell? The Structure 144 was severely damaged by simple answer is that he chose not to for Nathaniel Bacon’s invading army. While it is reasons that went unrecorded. The archaeo- unclear how many houses were left standing or logical and historical evidence clearly indicates how badly they were damaged, it seems safe to that House 2 remained in a ruinous condition guess that Houses 2, 3, 4, and 5 were uninhabit- through the 1690s. That fact that House 1 was able. The last was eventually renovated as the termed a country house in the 1694 patent and statehouse in 1684/5 (see Period VI below), not described as a ruin suggests that it was in and Houses 2, 3, and 4 were still “ruins” in 1694 better repair than its immediate neighbor, when Phillip Ludwell renewed his patent. House 2.

Period V (1684/5) A second perplexing question concerns the seemingly undeniable presence of two post The statehouse was rebuilt eight years after the holes in the floor of House 2 that secured a rebellion, seemingly on the same site (see scaffold used to build the second-period end discussion above). The frame of House 5 had chimney in House 3. The mystery is the probably been badly damaged, but the brick absence of corresponding scaffold holes at the shell must have been salvageable, for there is east end of House 4 presumably necessary for no evidence of any change to the size, form, or building the corresponding end chimney there. footprint of this building. Of course, another On further reflection, if one considers the way to interpret the same evidence is to ownership of the row at the time of these conjecture that the 1664/5 statehouse that alterations were made and the state of repair of Bacon burned was Structure 112 and that each house, the archaeological evidence may House 5 wasn’t built on the end of the Structure make perfect sense. Consider that Houses 2, 3 144 row until 1684/5, hence the lack of archi- and 4 were in ruins in 1694 and all owned by tectural evidence for a post-fire reconstruc- Phillip Ludwell and further that House 5 served tion. as the statehouse and was in usable condition. A case can be made that Ludwell only intended Period VI ( 1694 or soon after) to repair Houses 3 and 4 and used the ruins of House 2 as staging area for improvements to Houses 2, 3 and 4 were ruinous in 1694. Per- the other two. Thus, the pantiles that were haps Ludwell sought to repatent a property found in the scaffolding holes that seem to have that he appears to have owned for more than a been the covering for Houses 3 and 4 were decade as a legal precaution before beginning simply discarded construction debris. The expensive repairs. It seems highly likely that 1690s pottery sherd found in one of the holes is the rearrangement of the ground floor plans of therefore not surprising; that’s when this work Houses 3 and 4 occurred at this time. The took place. The lack of holes at the other end is relocated end chimneys and the new porch probably explained by the fact that the prop- towers were part and parcel of this work, the erty was not owned by Ludwell and the state- proof being the matching mortar used through- house had a roof that could serve as a platform out. The rear extensions to Houses 3 and 4— for the masons building the east end chimney Houses 3A and 4A—are seemingly part of this on House 4.

Chapter 3 3-10 Statehouse Fire, October 20, 1698

House 5, “the State-house,” was consumed by a fire that “broke out in a house adjoining” and quickly spread to a nearby prison [Calendar of State Papers, American and West Indies, 16, #946]. The only adjoining house was House 4, repaired since 1694. Was House 3 being used as a prison, or was this lock-up a separate building, the site of which remains to be found? How many other structures in the row survived is not known or how they might have been used after the colonial capital moved to Middle Plantation in 1699. The Desandrouins Map (fig.2) indicates the presence of an uni- dentified building, or possibly substantial ruins, on the site of Structure 144 in 1781.

Chapter 3 3-11 APPENDIX 3-A Patent to William Sherwood, 1681

Appendix 3-A Patent to William Sherwood, 23 April 1681[Patent Book 7, p. 97]

To all &c Whereas &c Now Know yee that I the said Sr Henry Chicheley Kt his Majties Deputy Governr &c Give and graunt unto Mr William Sherwood twenty Eight acres and a halfe of land lying att the Mouth of James Citty Island and is bounded as followeth (Vizt) begining at James river at the head of a great slash yssuing into the back river and downe the said slash East ½ a point Southerly Eighteene Chaines thence North ¾ point Easterly fower chaines to the back river Marsh and up the same to a markt persimon tree under block howse hill point thense under the said hill West six chaines to James river and downe it againe to the first menconed slash including Eight acres and thence againe downe the said slash forty three chaines to Mr Richard James land and along it South twenty three chaines to a branch of pitch and Tarr swamp thence up the said branch to James River and up the river to the place it began Conteyning twenty and halfe acres The said land being formerly graunted to Baldwyn by Pattent dated the fowerth of October Thou- sand six hundred fifty six for fifteene acres fifty nine perches more or less and now by a late survey found to conteyne twenty Eight acres and a halfe And the said John Baldwyn by his last Will and Testamt in writing under his hand and seale did give the said land to John ffulcher and his heires for ever Which said John ffuclcher by deed under his hand and seale dated the twoe and twentienth of October One Thousand six hundred seaventy & seaven acknowledged & recorded in James Citty County Court sould & conveyed the same to the said Mr William Sherwood and his heires for ever To have and to hold &c To bee held &c Yeilding &c Provided &c dated the three & twentieth day of Aprill Anno Domi 1681[.]

Appendix 3-A 3-A-2 APPENDIX 3-B Grant to Phillip Ludwell II, 1694

Appendix 3-B Grant to Phillip Ludwell II, 20 April 1694 [Patent Book 8, p. 315]

To all &c Whereas &c Now Know yee that I the said Sr Edmond Andros Knt,. Governour &c doe with the Advice and Consent of the Councill of State accordingly give and grant unto Phillip Ludwell Esqr One acre and halfe of Land adjoining to the Ruins of his three Brick houses between the State house and Country house in James City which Land is bounded Vizt begining Neare Pitch and Tarr swamp Eight Cheyes of the Eastrmost End of the said houses and runing by the said End south two degrees westerly sixteen Cheynes thence North Eighty Eight degrees westerly three and three quarter Cheynes thence North two degrees Easterly Sixteen Cheynes by the other End of the said houses and thence south Eighty Eight degrees Easterly three and three quarter Cheynes to the place it begun the said Land being due unto the said Phillip Ludwell Esqr by and for the Impor- tation of one person into this Colony whose Name is in the records Mentioned Under this Patent To have and to hold &c To be held &c. Yielding and paying &c Provided &c Dated this twentieth day of Aprill Anno qr Dom 1694

Appendix 3-B 3-B-2 APPENDIX 3-C Patent to Edward Chilton, 1683

Appendix 3-C Patent to Edward Chilton, 16 April 1683 [Patent Book 7, p. 292]

To all &c Whereas &c Now Know yee that I ye said Thomas Lord Culpeper, &c Governor &c doe with ye consent of ye Councel of State accordingly Give and Grant unto Mr: Edward Chilton two acres and seaventeen chaines of land, in James Citty, bound Viz: from Colo Phillip Ludwells corner stake south eighty eight degrees, easterly partly along his Honrs line ninety fouer chaines, thence south fouer degrees, and a halfe westerly, partly along an old ditch twelve chaines and an halfe down James River bank and along under ye said hill to a stake neer ye brick fort, and thence north sixteen degrees, easterly seaven cha: and an halfe to ye first stake; the said land being due by and for ye transportation of one person &c Dated ye 16th day of Aprill 1683. Peter Gibson [Endorsement] Chilton 2 [acres] 17:cha:

Appendix 3-C 3-C-2 APPENDIX 3-D Memorandum, “Documents Pertaining to the Berkeley Row, Jamestown”

Carl Lounsbury to Cary Carson, Willie Graham, Martha McCartney, 29 May 2002

Appendix 3-D May 29, 2002 at Jamestown. What they suggest is that the governor had built three contiguous brick To: Cary Carson, Willie Graham, houses at some point between his arrival in the Martha McCartney colony in 1642 and the spring of 1655 when he sold them. At least two of them had been rented From: Carl Lounsbury to tenants and the eastern one was as a statehouse. This was not a purpose built public Subject: Documents Pertaining to building but temporary quarters where the the Berkeley Row, assembly and courts met on occasion in the Jamestown 1650s and early 1660s.

The following history of Governor William In a 1645 letter to Berkeley, who was in En- Berkeley’s three brick houses at Jamestown gland at the time, Richard Kemp noted that his assumes that they cannot be linked to Structure “house at town, for want of materials, is yet no 144 (Ludwell Statehouse Group) or Structure higher than ye first storey above ye cellar.” 17 (the row of three back to back houses close (Clarendon ms 24, folio 51). Since we do not to the river). In the former case the documen- know where the Berkeley rowhouses are, it is tary evidence is not incontrovertible and the possible that this reference may refer to them. archaeological evidence suggests buildings Yet, it is also possible that it describes the erected and altered in pairs not as a trio. As to progress on Structure 112. latter, the evidence for the history of the property can be tied to documentary evidence Thomas Woodhouse, the purchaser of the that has no Berkeley connection and is linked to easternmost of the three Berkeley rowhouses, known archaeological or physical features on which was described as the “late statehouse,” the island.1 Therefore, the following deeds operated a tavern in Jamestown. In 1656, the associated with Berkeley should be seen as year after he purchased it, he was paid for pertaining to a third site at Jamestown, one hosting the General Court. Four years later, he that has not heretofore been discovered. was paid once again for these services, suggesting the continued presence of the court and The first references appear in 1655 to a group perhaps the General Assembly in this or of three brick houses in a row erected by neighboring middle house through the early Governor Berkeley. By that time, the provincial 1660s when the statehouse was finally con- government rented two of them for sessions of structed. the General Court and meetings of the General Assembly. The history of these buildings can be January 1, 1667: William Berkeley grants to traced for seventeen years before the docu- Thomas Ludwell and Thomas Stegg II half an mentary trail disappears. acre of land in James City “on the Rivers side and adjoyneing to the westernmost of those March 24, 1655: “Ordered that Collo. Francis three houses all wch Joyntly were formerly Morrison take assurance of Sr. Wm. Berkeley, called by the name of old State house bounded Knt., of the middle brick house in James Citty as followeth Vizd: beginning on the South side bought of him the said Sr. Willm Berkeley, as of the said house close to the wall where the also that he give Mr. Tho. Woodhouse Livery & said westernmost house joynes to the middle Seizen of the late State house.” house . . . the said land being due by and for building a house in James City aforesaid” March 30, 1655: William Berkeley for 27,000 pounds of tobacco sold to “Richard Bennett, Interpretations of this patent have varied Esq., Governour of Virginia . . .my house in widely. Some have placed the land described in James Cittie, lately in the tenure of William the patent further east at Structure 17, but as Whittby being the westernmost of the three the Carson memo demonstrates, this is impos- brickhouses which I there built.” sible. Another interpretation suggests that Ludwell and Stegg received the land for build- These are the earliest references that have been ing House 1 onto the western side of Structure ascribed to Sir William Berkeley’s brick houses 144, the Ludwell Statehouse group (Houses 2,

Appendix 3-D 3-D-2 3, and 4). However, as the evidence from the Cary “one messuage house or tenement of surviving foundations proves, Houses 1 and 2 brick building of 40 feet long and 20 wide were built at the same time. House 1 is not an being the middle pt of that fabrick of building addition to these original buildings. where was the old State house, together with the lands” Apparently, Ludwell and Stegg had purchased the westernmost of Berkeley’s three houses that April 7, 1671: Henry Randolph sold to Thomas had in 1655 been sold to Richard Bennett. How Swann of Surry “one messuage, house or brick Berkeley got the house back from Bennett is not building of 40 feet long and 20 wide being the known. The grant describes the land that is easternmost end of that pile of building adjoining to the westernmost house but also whereof the old state-house was pt and next encompasses that house as well. adjoining thereto, which messuage was formerly in the occupation of Thomas Bayly.” The wording of the patent mentions again that the three houses built by Berkeley “Joyntly April 7, 1671: Henry Randolph sold to Thomas were formerly called by the name of old State Ludwell of James City County “one messuage house.” By this time a purpose-built statehouse or tenement of brick building of 40 feet long had been constructed and the word old was and 20 feet wide being the messuage of pt of used to distinguish this property from the new that fabrick pile of building which contains statehouse that had been constructed by 1665. three tenements, the middlemost whereof was the old State house which messuage was April 3, 1670: For £25 sterling, William Berke- formerly in the occupation of Richard Bennett ley sold to Henry Randolph of Henrico “all that Esqr.” the remains, foundation and brick works of a certain house or messuage that was burned of In 1670 Henry Randolph had purchased the 40 feet long and 20 feet broad being the western unit of Berkeley’s three brick houses. westernmost pt of the ruined fabrick or build- By the following year, the other two were also ings adjoining to the old State house which said in possession. He then sold all three of them to messuage was formerly in the occupation of different individuals. The three deeds describe Richard Bennett Esqr together with the land the houses as being 20 by 40 feet. They are also whereon the said ruined messuage standeth, referred to in their former capacity as the old situated lying and being upon the river side in statehouse. “The middlemost” house, was James city.” called “the old statehouse,” which contrasts to the 1655 deed that identified eastern unit as the This deed apparently describes the house that “late statehouse.” This discrepancy only Berkeley sold to Richard Bennett in 1655 and illustrates the point that these two buildings had been granted to Ludwell and Stegg some were being rented through much of the 1650s three years earlier. How Berkeley got the and early 1660s to individuals who in turn were property back from Ludwell and Stegg is paid for hosting a session of the General Court unknown. However, the deed does tie into the or General Assembly. 1655 deed wherein Berkeley sold the property to Richard Bennett. This transaction in 1670 Formerly in the possession of Richard Bennett describes the building as being 40 by 20 feet and described as ruinous the previous year, the and standing in ruins because of a fire. It also western house seems not to have been re- notes that it is upon the riverside of the town. paired. However, in the nineteenth century, No mention of a burnt building was made in the Conway Robinson noted that Thomas Ludwell 1667 grant, which suggests that the fire oc- afterward got a patent of a half-acre of land curred between then and 1670. The deed also adjoining this house and then reconveyed it notes that the property adjoined the “old State with the adjoining land to William Berkeley on house,” presumably the middle and eastern March 17, 1672 for £150. The jump in price units of the three-house row. between £25 in 1670 and £150 two years later strongly suggests that Berkeley purchased a April 7, 1671: Henry Randolph sold to house that had been repaired. But, how could Nathaniel Bacon and the executors of Col. Miles Berkeley have sold this in 1670 to Randolph if

Appendix 3-D 3-D-3 Ludwell still had possession following the death of Thomas Stegg II in late 1670 or early 1671? Why would Berkeley buy it back in 1672? There is a major discrepancy here that would argue that either Berkeley was double dealing or that the westernmost of the three brick houses went through many hands very quickly and that we have only a fragmentary history of those property transactions.

To make sense of the history of the western house, the chronology would appear to be: 1655: Berkeley sells to Bennett 1667: Berkeley grants to Ludwell and Stegg 1670: Berkeley sells to Randolph 1671: Randolph sells to Ludwell 1672: Ludwell sells to Berkeley

No further grants or deeds can be directly linked to Berkeley’s three brick houses after 1672.

Coda: Bacon’s Rebellion

Presumably all of these buildings were destroyed by fire in the 1676 rebellion. Documen- tary evidence relating to Bacon’s confrontation with the governor in Jamestown in 1676 mentions that the governor left the front steps of the statehouse and “walk’d toward his private apartm’t a coits cast distance at th’ other end of the statehouse.” This reference could be construed in the following manner. Berkeley left his meeting with Nathaniel Bacon on the steps of the statehouse built in the mid- 1660s and walked a short distance to his lodgings. Was this apartment one of Berkeley’s old houses that he had built before 1655 and had repurchased from Thomas Ludwell in 1672, or simply another site altogether that was used by the governor as his private townhouse at the other end of the statehouse? The phrase “the other end of the statehouse” could be interpreted as a contiguous structure next to the statehouse—an integral part of a row such as Structure 144.

1 For a recent review of the documentary history of Structure 17, see Cary Carson’s memo “Structures 17 and 144,” February 27, 2002.

Appendix 3-D 3-D-4 APPENDIX 3-E Responses to APVA Research Queries

MARTHA W. McCARTNEY

Appendix 3-E RESPONSE TO APVA RESEARCH QUERIES MARTHA W. McCARTNEY 15 AUGUST 2002

The narrative that follows addresses the issues the records of several Tidewater Virginia raised by the APVA in memoranda written in counties, in the overarching branches of April and May/June 2002. In each instance, Virginia’s government, and from abroad, were pertinent background information is presented used to sort out the inter-relationship of and then viewed in light of specific issues that specific tracts, synchronously, and to discern APVA personnel have raised. the evolution of land ownership patterns over time. Studying Jamestown Island’s Land Microfilm copies of original patents on file in Records the Virginia Land Office and deeds and patents among the Ambler Papers were examined During the Jamestown Archaeological Assess- closely and in many instances, compared word ment, four Jamestown Island plats and a dozen by word. Whenever detailed property descrip- or more historical maps were digitized and tions were available, survey data (such as the reproduced at the same scale. Then, they were length of specific boundary lines and compass “layered” or superimposed upon one another declinations) were converted from obsolete so that common reference points could be measuring schemes into their modern equiva- reconciled. Once this composite had been lents. Individual patents were sketched by created, the length and declination of specific hand and then reconstructed to scale electroni- tracts’ boundary lines were compared. This was cally, using AutoCAD. Throughout the research done so that an electronic template or tract process, close attention was given to the map could be produced and then superimposed identification of common boundary lines. upon an electronic base map of Jamestown Island that included boundary ditches and Records of the Virginia Land Office (books of other cultural features excavated by archae- land patents) initially were identified and ologists during the 1930s and 50s. Once this accessed via the abstracts produced by Nell M. multi-component electronic template had been Nugent and Dennis Hudgins. Then, microfilmed created, the patterns formed by individual copies of the original patents were examined property boundaries were compared visually carefully. Thanks to the preservation of the with the ditch patterns shown on the digitized Ambler Manuscripts, the Beverley Papers, and Jamestown Island base map. The numerous the Lee Papers, sometimes it was possible to “matches” or common reference points that make a line-by-line comparison between were identified made it feasible to link the certain patents in the Virginia Land Office electronically-generated tract map to bound- collection and a landowner’s copy of the same ary ditches and landscape features shown on document. This was an important component the Jamestown Island base map. This, in turn, of our research, for Virginia’s pre-1683 land made it possible to associate specific cultural patents are transcriptions of fragmentary features with specific properties. For example, original documents that in some instances were certain archaeological sites excavated during summarized by the transcriptionists: clerks and the 1930s and 50s were found to correspond deputy clerks in the office of the Secretary of with the locations of buildings depicted on two the Colony. The Ambler Manuscripts and the seventeenth century plats. Moreover, superim- Lee Papers, on the other hand, include family posing the electronic template upon the members’ verbatim copies of original land Jamestown Island base map made it possible to records (or the originals themselves) as well as link cultural features mentioned in documen- lists of headrights that were omitted by tran- tary sources (many which await discovery by scriptionists in the clerk’s office. Occasionally, archaeologists) to specific properties. Histori- notations on the back of documents provided cal maps and manuscripts from foreign and important clues to the ownership of land and domestic repositories and data recovered from the construction of improvements. In some

Appendix 3-E 3-E-2 instances, this information was accessed published. At the beginning of her abstracts of through firsthand examination of the Ambler the records in Patent Book 4, she noted that Manuscripts and the Lee and Beverley Papers, “The following Abstracts of Patent Book Nos. 4 rather than relying solely upon microfilmed and 5 were made from ‘Old Volume 5,’ which copies. has been transcribed into two volumes and the old book withdrawn from use. ‘Old Volume 5’ is unindexed and the pages do not correspond with the general index to patents or with the transcriptions in Books 4 and 5” (Nugent 1969- 1979:I:321). Miss Nugent failed to indicate whether she knew what happened to the The Condition of the Virginia Land original Patent Books 4 and 5, if indeed she knew. The records in Patent Book 4 extend Office Records from roughly 1655 to 1663, whereas those in Patent Book 5 run from 1662 to 1666. The The records in Patent Book 1, documents that patents in Patent Books 4 and 5 are not in strict range in date from February 20, 1619/20 chronological order and each page bears two through part of 1644, are grouped in roughly sets of numbers. When preparing abstracts of chronological order. On the end sheet of Patent the records in Patent Book 6, which covers the Book 1 is the notation, “This book was tran- period 1666-1679, Miss Nugent noted that its scribed by Edward Harrison in the yeare 1683” first four pages were made from what appeared (Patent Book 1:951). On page 369, the last page to be a transcription of fragmentary records of Patent Book 2, which covers the period 1644 that contained many blank spaces. This record to late 1651, Clerk Robert Beverley II noted, book would have been in use in the clerk’s “There are three leaves not to be found on office when the colony’s statehouse was burned which I find entered by an Alphabet [index] to in September 1676 during Bacon’s Rebellion. It the same written by Mr. Edward Chilton for- also is the one that contains the 1667 Ludwell- merly Clerk to this office, Vizt. . . . So much Stegg patent. Patent Book 7 (1679-1688) and therfore of the rest as it was possible to read is Patent Book 8 (1689-1695), with some excep- faithfully recorded and examined this 22nd day tions, seem to have been relatively well pre- of September 1694” (Patent Book 2:369). served, as have those in Patent Book 9 (1695- Patent Book 3 also contains a notation by clerk 1706) despite another statehouse fire and “all Robert Beverley II, who stated, “The former the records but ecclesiastical, civil and military part of this Book being transcribed out of loose were all intermingled.” Governor Edmund Leaves, which were by me hung upon a string Andros said that in October 1698, when the and alphabeted, when I was Deputy in this statehouse burned, the public records were office. . . . R. Beverley” (Patent Book 3:394). thrown out of the building and landed in heaps. Patent Book 3 contains patents dating from late He said that he had issued a proclamation for 1653 through October 1656. It is, perhaps, “bringing in the books and papers scattered significant that Thomas Woodhouse’s October owing to the burning of the statehouse.” Later, 17, 1655, patent for the Structure 17 lot is Governor Francis Nicholson said that of the among those included in Patent Book 3. On records that “They have since been sorted and April 26, 1652, while Virginia was under the methodized.” In 1747, after the capital had sway of the Commonwealth government, the been moved to Williamsburg, the colony’s assembly passed an act which “provided that statehouse burned again. The government all pattents should hereafter bee signed under records stored there reportedly were “so the Governors hand with the Secretaries and carelessly kept” that they were “broken, shall bee accounted Authentique & vallid in interrupted and deficient . . . and lie in such a Law untill a Collony seale shall bee provided confused and jumbled state (at least the most and apointed” (Nugent 1969-1979:I:321). ancient of them) being huddled together in single leaves and sheets in books out of the During the 1930s Nell M. Nugent, custodian of binding.” Afterward, they were gathered up and the Virginia Land Office from 1925 to 1958, sorted (Sainsbury 1964:16:951; 17:579; began compiling the abstracts that later were McIlwaine 1925-1945:I:392).

Appendix 3-E 3-E-3 Plats and Surveys in the Ambler house Group. Another objective is to address the land records concerns raised by Will Rieley Papers in his reports and the APVA memoranda received in April and June 2002. A third The Ambler Manuscripts, which consist of a objective is the identification of buildings that large collection of loose documents, include are known to have existed in Jamestown during four plats for land on Jamestown Island. One is the second half of the seventeenth century but a 1664 plat by John Underhill (Ambler MS 135- await discovery. For the sake of emphasis, 136) that delimits Study Unit 1 Tract D. An- especially important information has been other (Ambler MS 134), done by James City printed in bold type. County’s official surveyor, John Soane, includes the western part of Study Unit 1 Tract D. It was made for William Sherwood in 1681, around the time he acquired the westernmost Documentary Records Associated 66 acres of Study Unit 1 Tract D, and it depicts With Structure 17 and identifies buildings at sites analogous to Structures 31/38, 58, and 86. Ambler MS 134 also contains a second plat that depicts the The Structure 17 Lot (Study Unit 4 Tract C boundaries of Study Unit 1 Tract E, a 28 ½ acre Lots A and B) patent that extended onto the isthmus that linked Jamestown Island to the mainland. A fourth plat (Ambler MS 137) depicts 37 ½ Thomas Woodhouse acquires Lots A and acres (part of Study Unit 3 Tract H) that in 1674 B belonged to Colonel Thomas Swann. The On October 17, 1655, Thomas Woodhouse Ambler Manuscripts also include a document patented a 1 acre river front lot that measured (Ambler MS 34) containing the verbal bound- 209 feet on each side. His patent boundaries, ary description of a parcel that John Soane which ran counter-clockwise, began “at the surveyed for William Sherwood in 1682, Study Mulberry Tree by the waterside and runing Unit 1 Tract F. When those measurements are downe ye river South East 1/2 point Southerly laid out sequentially, it is possible to recon- 12 poles 11 feet [209 feet] and thence from high struct a plat that delimits the boundaries of water mark towards Mr. Chiles his Orchard Study Unit 1 Tract F, a property that shared a North East 1/2 point Easterly 12 poles and 11 common boundary line with Study Unit 4 Tract feet [209 feet] and thence North West 1/2 point K, which contains Structure 115. All of these Northerly Parrellell to the river line 12 poles 11 surveys have been linked to land forms and/or feet [209 feet] and thence to the place wee boundary ditches that archaeologists have began South West 1/2 point Westerly with identified on Jamestown Island. Collectively, markes at Each Station” (Patent Book 3:380). they comprise a key component in the land This transaction occurred during the Common- records research that was done as part of the wealth period and within months of the time Jamestown Archaeological Assessment. the assembly allowed Governor Edward Digges to assign patents. It is doubtful that Thomas Woodhouse developed his property, for when Documents Associated with he halved and then disposed of it, no improvements were mentioned. For convenience of Structures 17 and 115 reference, Woodhouse’s lot has been designated Study Unit 4 Tract C. The Chiles property Within the discussion that follows, documen- to which the Woodhouse patent makes refer- tary sources have been linked with the ar- ence, is Study Unit 1 Tract F, which belonged to chaeological remains of two brick rowhouses Walter Chiles I and his son, Walter Chiles II, that were constructed at Jamestown during the who in succession owned their property from seventeenth century. One goal of this exercise March 23, 1649, until November 20, 1673. The is to identify written records that pertain to boundaries of Study Unit 1 Tract F were defined Structures 17 and 115, sequestering them from very precisely by John Soane in 1682. Soane records that may be associated with Structure also mentioned “ye Ruins of Sqr Kemps old 144, traditionally known as the Ludwell State- Brick house” (Ambler MS 34).

Appendix 3-E 3-E-4 Documentation that establishes the to the land were included in the bargain. An Chiles lot’s location endorsement at the end of the conveyance On March 23, 1649, Governor William Berkeley identifies this document as the “Deed for the sold the 3 1/2 acre Kemp-Wyatt lot (Study Unit brick howses at James City” (Ambler MS 24). 1 Tract F) and its improvements to Walter Chiles I. At that time, the property’s chain of Colonel John Page, a merchant and local agent title was recapitulated. It was noted that “Sr W of the Royal African Company, was in posses- Berkeleys deed of sale to Mr Chiles” included sion of Study Unit 1 Tract F at the time of “the Brick house formrly Mr Secry Kemps” Bacon’s Rebellion, at which time a substantial (Ambler MS 4). When Walter Chiles I died in quantity of London merchant John Jeffreys’ 1653, all of his landholdings descended to his wine stored in his cellars was destroyed by fire eldest son, Walter Chiles II (Ambler MS 6, 24). (C.O. 1/12 f 115; 1/41 f 218; 5/1355 ff 200-203; By 1656, Walter Chiles II, who had inherited his Sainsbury 1964:10:167). It is thought that father’s property on Jamestown Island, moved Structure 53, which is located upon Study Unit there. He and his wife, Mary, the daughter of 1 Tract F, constitutes the remains of the Colonel John Page, probably occupied the cellared building that Colonel John Page Kemp house (Structure 44) on Tract F. Chiles’ owned. land in that vicinity was used as a reference point in 1660 when John Fitchett patented a Sometime after Bacon’s Rebellion but before neighboring property, Study Unit 4 Tract E. October 27, 1682, Colonel John Page sold his 3 From 1660 through 1666 Walter Chiles II 1/2 acre lot in Jamestown (Study Unit 1 Tract served as Jamestown’s burgess (Meyer et al. F) to William Sherwood. Although the deed 1987:410; Nugent 1969-1979:I:339; Ambler effecting that transaction has been lost or MS 6; Hening 1809-1823:I:506-507; II:196- destroyed, on October 27, 1682, when James 197; Stanard 1965:74, 77; Leonard 1976:38). City County surveyor John Soane delimited the property for Sherwood, he recorded detailed Walter Chiles II prepared his will on November boundary data and noted that the property was 15, 1671, and died later in the year (Ambler MS the 3 1/2 acre lot that Sherwood “bought of 24). A deed executed on November 20, 1673, Coll. Page.” The verbal boundary description by Walter Chiles II’s widow (his second wife, for the 3 1/2 acres Sherwood purchased Susanna) and her new husband, conveyed the commenced at the southwest corner of the 1 decedent’s 3 1/2 acre lot (Study Unit 1 Tract F) acre lot upon which he then resided (Study Unit and its improvements to Colonel John Page. 1 Tract D Lot A) and ran clockwise. The bound- The deed transferring the property to Page ary line began “at ye SW Corner of his reveals that when Walter Chiles II inherited the [Sherwood’s) Acre of Land & runing N 58 Kemp house and 3 1/2 acres from his father, he degrees 0 minutes Wly 7.4 chains [244.2 feet], “entered into the Said Messuage, outhowses, [then] N 10 degrees 0 minutes E 19.5 chains land & premisses with the appurtenances, and [643.5 feet] to Pitch & Tarr Swamp & down it S by himself & his tennants quietly held & en- 70 degrees 0 minutes E 6.28 chains [207.24 joyed the same, & built a Brick howse or tene- feet] to his formr Land & along ye Same S 5 ment conteyning in length 37 foote, neere degrees 30 minutes Wly 15 chains [495 feet], S adjoyneing to the aforesaid messuage,” i.e., the 12 degrees 45 minutes W 4 chains [132 feet], S Kemp house (Ambler MS 24). That structure, 16 degrees 45 Wly 2.21 chains [72.93 feet] to which was fabricated of brick, has been exca- ye place it began, Including ye Ruins of Sqr vated and dated by archaeologists; it has been Kemps old Brick house” (Ambler MS 34). designated Structure 44. A neighboring building, Structure 138, has been excavated. It When the boundaries of William Sherwood’s measures 37-feet-long, is located upon Study newly purchased 3 1/2 acre lot were recon- Unit 1 Tract F, and is believed to be the house structed to scale electronically using John “in length 37 foote” that was constructed by Soane’s 1682 survey data, it was found that the Walter Chiles II. The Chiles-Page deed states multi-segmented eastern boundary line of that “the said two Messuages [the Kemp house Tract F precisely mirrors that of the western and the 37-foot-long house built by Walter boundary line of Tract D (the Sherwood prop- Chiles II] belonging or in any wise pertaining” erty to which it adjoined) which had been

Appendix 3-E 3-E-5 surveyed by John Soane in 1681. Moreover, singular its rights members Jurisdictions & the western boundary line of Tract F was found appurtenances, together wth one dwelling to correspond to the eastern boundary line of house in & upon ye same erected wth a brick Study Unit 4 Tract K, which perimeters were chimney, & all ways, easmts, enclosures, profits described and identified in an April 7, 1685, & commodities thereon” (Ambler MS 59). deed from William and Elizabeth Brown to George Lee. These boundary line configura- On November 12, 1696, when George Marable tions were found to match ditch patterns and II sold a contiguous parcel to William features shown on John Cotter’s Jamestown Sherwood (Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot B, the 1/2 Island archaeological base map. acre he had inherited from his father), he made reference to the lot’s abutting “northerly Archaeological Features that document towards the howse & land of John Harris, the Chiles lot’s location (Study Unit 1 Taylor,” Study Unit 1 Tract F Lot C. Harris Tract F) retained his property until November 4, 1701, then selling it to William Drummond II (Ambler The Chiles/Page/Sherwood lot, which perim- MS 59, 62, 114). A bottle seal found in associa- eters are described with precision in John tion with Structure 44, bearing the initials Soane’s October 1682 survey, interface with “RW,” may be associated with Ralph Wormeley properties that are contiguous to the east, west II, William Sherwood’s former tenant (Cotter and south and are well documented. Moreover, 1958:75, 79). the archaeological features designated Struc- tures 44 and 138, which lie within Study Unit 1 Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot B’s Chain of Tract F (a parcel described and delimited by surveyor John Soane) have been identified and Title found to date to the period during which the Kemp house and Chiles-built house are known Thomas Woodhouse sells Lot B to Mrs. to have been in existence. Structure 44 (the Ann Talbott remains of a brick dwelling, probably the Kemp On September 1, 1657, Thomas Woodhouse house), Structure 138 (a 37-foot-long house subdivided the 1 acre lot he had patented on that in all probability is the 37-foot-long house October 17, 1655. He sold the western half (i.e., that Walter Chiles II built), Structure 53 (Page’s ½ acre) to Mrs. Ann Talbott and retained the cellared building), and the 1682 survey of residual 1/2 acre. When Mrs. Talbott’s lot was Study Unit 1 Tract F collectively link the repatented by George Marable I on February Woodhouse lot, which fronts upon the James, 25, 1663, it still contained 1/2 acre. However, to a specific location within the New Town the lot’s overall shape and dimensions had been landscape. changed. Instead of measuring 104.5 feet wide and 209 feet long (as might be expected when a On May 11, 1696, when William Sherwood sold 209 foot by 209 foot lot is halved), it measured the southerly part of Study Unit 1 Tract F to 115.5 feet wide and 188.57 feet long. Land John Harris, he indicated that the 1/2 acre he ownership records fail to disclose why the was selling was “late in ye occupation of Mr. boundaries of Tract C were modified. However, Secretary Wormeley.” The verbal boundary the December 1662 building initiative probably description for the newly created lot com- was the impetus for the change, which had menced at its southwest corner and ran occurred by February 1663. By that time, Sir counter-clockwise. It began “at a stake in ye William Berkeley had regained the governor- Line on Omoonces Land formerly ffitchetts ship and Virginia again was a Crown colony. Land [Study Unit 4 Tract E], & runing along on That the newly-shaped lots (B and A) were ye South side of ye Mulberry trees 90 foot, surveyed and re-patented on the same date thence N’ly towards ye maine road [Ditch 24] suggests that the modification was purposeful 40 foot, thence NW near ye sd Maine Road to and carefully executed. ye Corner of Omoonces Land 100 foot, & so along ye line of Omoonces Land to ye place or Sometime prior to February 25, 1663, Mrs. stake it first began.” Harris was “To have and to Ann Talbott’s heirs sold her 1/2 acre lot to hold ye sd parcel or quantity of Land wth all & George Marable I (Patent Book 5:253-254).

Appendix 3-E 3-E-6 Very little is known about Mrs. Talbott except land transactions suggest, however, that the that on March 1, 1655, she patented the 1 acre Marable dwelling was Bay 2 of Structure 17 lot that has been designated Study Unit 4 Tract (Patent Book 5:253-254; Ambler MS 62) (see A. The wording of her patent for Tract A does ahead). not indicate that she was obliged to develop her land in order to secure its title (Patent Book George Marable I died sometime prior to July 3:331; Nugent 1969-1979:I:305). This raises 1683 and his widow and executrix, Catherine, the possibility that one or more buildings married Henry Gawler (Surry County Order already stood upon her property, probably Bay Book 1671-1691:409; Charles City County 2 of Structure 17. Order Book 1685:5). In 1684 and 1685, Gawler was paid for having provided the Governor’s In February 1663 when George Marable I Council and the General Court with a meeting repatented the 1/2 acre lot he had purchased room and on one occasion he was compensated from Mrs. Ann Talbott’s heirs, it was noted that for hosting an assembly meeting. These rentals it was the same parcel that Mrs. Talbott had would have occurred before the statehouse was purchased from Thomas Woodhouse on Octo- restored to usable condition. On December 7, ber 17, 1655 (Patent Book 5:253-254; Ambler 1685, Gawler was described as an ordinary- MS 62). This statement links the Marable patent keeper, who was obliged to find other accom- to the land that Mrs. Talbott from Thomas modations for his guests because he had Woodhouse, the acreage that abutted the Chiles provided meeting-space to government offi- patent. cials (McIlwaine 1905-1915:256-257; 1918:88- 89). Henry and Catherine Gawler probably Talbott heirs to George Marable I occupied the rowhouse unit that belonged to On February 25, 1663, when George Marable I her late husband, George Marable I, as neither repatented his 1/2 acre lot, his patent stated the Gawler nor Marable surnames are associ- that it was the land he had purchased it from ated with any other property on Jamestown Mrs. Ann Talbott’s heirs and that Mrs. Talbott Island. It is, perhaps, significant that on August had bought her acreage from Thomas 9, 1935, Charles S. Marshall of the NPS reported Woodhouse on September 1, 1657. Marable’s that a cluster of 13 “HG” bottle seals was found patent also specifies that his lot was part of the 60 or 70 yards west of Structure 17 (Cotter land Woodhouse had patented on October 17, 1958:47). 1655. A verbal boundary description of the Marable lot indicates that the property line, George Marable I to George Marable II which ran clockwise, began at its southwest George Marable I’s son, George II, inherited his corner, “at a Corner stake at high Water mark late father’s acreage (Lot B) and brick rowhouse near the Mulberry.” It then ran “between the (Bay 2) in Jamestown, probably after Catherine Mulberry and the said Marables now dwelling Marable Gawler’s life-rights expired. He may House North East by North 5 & 5/7 chains have been living there in late 1692 or early [188.57 feet] to a Corner Stake within the 1693, for he was compensated for hosting a Garden.” At that point it proceeded “South East government committee meeting “at his brick by East 3 1/2 chains [115.5 feet] to a Corner house” in Jamestown (McIlwaine 1918:179, Locust stake in the paled fence.” Then it turned 181, 459; 1925-1945:I:363, 392-393; III:141, back toward the James River, running “south 316; Sainsbury 1964:18:728; 21:285). West by south 5 5/7 chains [188.57 feet] to the River aforesaid, thence North West by West 3 George Marable II to William Sherwood 1/2 chains [115.5 feet] to the place Where it On November 12, 1696, George Marable II sold began.” his late father’s half-acre Jamestown lot (Lot B) and the ruins of the decedent’s brick house (Bay Although George Marable I’s 1663 patent made 2) to William Sherwood. The east wall of the late reference to his “now dwelling house,” it did George Marable I’s house was described as not state that the boundary line passed through “abutting on and joyneing Easterly to the brick any of its walls. Rather, the boundary line was howse and land now in the possession of John said to run “between the Mulberry and the said Jarrett,” William Sherwood’s nephew.1 The west Marables now dwelling House.” Subsequent wall of the Marable house reportedly abutted

Appendix 3-E 3-E-7 “westerly on the ruins of the brick howse & Jamestown. His will was presented for probate halfe acre of land belonging to phillip Ludwell in February 1698 (Ambler MS 65, 73; McGhan Esqr” (Ambler MS 62, 65). George Marable II, 1993:873). as grantor, also made reference to the fact that the lot he was selling to William Sherwood William Sherwood to Sir Jeffrey Jeffreys, abutted “northerly towards the howse & land of his reversionary heir John Harris, Taylor” (Ambler MS 62). The Jeffrey Jeffreys, William Sherwood’s reversion- position of the land that Marable transferred to ary heir, was a London merchant and the William Sherwood is confirmed by the location brother and business partner of John Jeffreys. of the Harris patent, Study Unit 1 Tract F Lot C, When Jeffrey Jeffreys learned that William at the southern terminus of Study Unit 1 Tract Sherwood and his widow were dead, he autho- F. rized Arthur Spicer to take the decedent’s estate into custody. On December 11, 1704, Verbatim, the text of the Marable-Sherwood Jeffrey Jeffreys sold his reversionary interest patent states that it was for ½ acre of land “on in the late William Sherwood’s land (described which a brick howse formerly did stand, and as 400 acres) to Edward Jaquelin, who had where my said father George Marable lived, married the widowed Rachel Sherwood abutting on and Joyneing Easterly to the brick (McGhan 1993:873; Withington 1980:52; howse and land now in possession of John Sainsbury 1964:1:105, 170; McIlwaine 1925- Jarrett [William Sherwood’s nephew], belong- 1945:1:426; Ambler MS 65, 73). This transac- ing to Micajah Perry and Company Merchants tion included Lot B of Study Unit 4 Tract C. in London, Westerly on the ruins of the brick howse & halfe acre of land belonging to phillip Jeffrey Jeffreys to Edward Jaquelin Ludwell Esqr., Southerly on James River, & In ca. 1699 Mrs. Rachel James Sherwood northerlye toward the howse & land belonging married Edward Jaquelin, who moved into her to John Harris Taylor” (Ambler MS 62). It is the home and on December 11, 1704, acquired wording of this patent that places the Marable Jeffrey Jeffreys’ interest in the late William house ruins between the walls of the buildings Sherwood’s estate (Ambler MS 65, 73). After that abutted it on the east (Bay 1) and west (Bay Rachel James Sherwood Jaquelin’s death, 3). Edward Jaquelin married Martha Cary with whom he had several children. Edward outlived William Sherwood, through his November 1696 Martha and their sons and when he died in purchase of Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot B, gained November 1739, his three daughters became important river front access, for his extensive his heirs. Edward Jaquelin’s Jamestown Island holdings on the north side of Back Street lacked plantation, including his dwelling (Structure access to the James (Ambler MS 62). It was on 31/38 on Study Unit 1 Tract D Lot A) and Study “the country house lot,” Study Unit 1 Tract D Unit 4 Tract C Lot B, descended through his Lot A, which Sherwood purchased on February eldest daughter, Elizabeth Ambler to the 6, 1677, that he constructed a brick house decedent’s four-year-old grandson, John some time prior to April 23, 1681 (Ambler MS Ambler I (Smith et al. 1745; Meyer et al. 65; Patent Book 7:98). That building (Structure 1987:606). 31, which was erected on top of the remains of Structure 38, the “country house”) has been Archaeological Features that Establish identified archaeologically and is shown on Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot B’s Location John Soane’s 1681 plat of Sherwood’s 66 acres Structure 44: Richard Kemp’s brick house above Back Street. The house owned by “Mr Chiles” also is shown on that plat, within Study Structure 31: the brick house built by William Unit 1 Tract F (Ambler MS 134). On August 18, Sherwood on top of the “country house” 1697, when William Sherwood made his will, he (Structure 38) left his wife, Rachel, a life interest in almost all Structure 138: the 37-foot-long house built by of his real and personal estate. Reversionary Walter Chiles II rights in his property descended from Rachel to London merchant Jeffrey Jeffreys. Sherwood Structure 53: the cellared house built by John died later in the year and was buried at Page

Appendix 3-E 3-E-8 Structure 17: Bay 1 (the unit that the Marable North West by West 3 1/2 chains [115.5 feet].” house abutted on the east) and Bay 3 (the unit Castle’s line then extended “North East by that the Marable property abutted on the west). North 5 & 5/7 chains [188.57 feet] to a corner Locust stake in the paled fence.” At that point it Response to the APVA Memo on Struc- turned “south East by East 3 1/2 Chains [115.5 ture 17 feet] to a Corner stake against Mr. Fitchets 1. George Marable I’s February 1663 patent for House, [on Study Unit 4 Tract F]” and then ½ acre of land he acquired from Mrs. Ann headed back toward the James, running “south Talbott’s heirs indicates that the property’s West by south 5 5/7 chains [188.57 feet] to the western boundary line ran “between the place Where it Began” (Patent Book 5:272; Mulberry and the said Marables now dwelling Nugent 1969-1979:I:154). The rowhouse unit House.” The text of this Marable patent does designated Bay 1 was constructed upon Lot A, not state that it passes through a building of perhaps while Robert Castle owned it. Within any sort. In fact, rightly or wrongly, it does not two years of the time Castle secured his patent address that issue at all. for Lot A, plans got underway to build a fort on the acreage that adjoined his eastern lot line. 2. A 1696 deed drafted when George Marable II The fort’s construction and its use as a licensing sold his late father’s property states that it was center for trading vessels may well have “abutting on and Joyneing Easterly to the brick influenced the manner in which Lot A of Study howse and land now in the possession of John Unit 4 Tract C was developed, for some of its Jarrett, belonging to Micajah Perry and Com- owners were merchants or their agents. pany Merchants in London, Westerly on the ruins of the brick howse & halfe acre of land belonging to phillip Ludwell Esqr.” Ambler MS Micajah Perry and Company (leasor) to 62). Use of the words “abutting on and John Jarrett (Jarratt) (lessee) Joyneing Easterly to” suggests strongly that the Sometime prior to November 12, 1696, when Marable lot’s eastern line ran through the George Marable II sold Lot B and the ruins of western wall of Bay 1. his late father’s dwelling (Structure 17 Bay 2) to William Sherwood, the London mercantile firm of Micajah Perry and Company (Perry, Lane and Company) came into possession of Lot A Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot A’s Chain of and Bay 1. As noted in the discussion of Lot B, Marable stated that the property was “abutting Title on and joyneing Easterly to the brick howse [Structure 17 Bay 1] and land now in the Thomas Woodhouse to Robert Castle possession of John Jarrett,” which was then Thomas Woodhouse, who on September 1, owned by Micajah Perry and Company, a 1657, sold Lot B to Ann Talbott, deeded his mercantile firm better known as Perry, Lane remaining half-acre (Lot A) to Robert Castle on and Company. Mrs. Joannah Jarrett was February 6, 1662. On February 25, 1663, Castle Micajah Perry’s niece and the sister of Micajah repatented his lot and George Marable I Lowe, a Charles City County merchant, and repatented Lot B, which he had acquired from John Jarrett was the nephew of William the Talbott heirs. It was then that both lots’ Sherwood. Another member of this familial boundaries were redefined. trading network was William Edwards IV of Surry, who married Micajah Lowe’s widow, Robert Castle’s February 6, 1662, patent makes Sarah, and owned lots in nearby Study Unit 4 reference to the common boundary line his Tract L (Ambler MS 48, 62, 65, 101). George property shared with his westerly neighbor, Marable II’s 1696 deed suggests that the George Marable I. A verbal boundary descrip- Jarretts were residing in Structure 17 Bay 1, the tion of the Castle lot indicates that the property Perry firm’s house. The Marable conveyance to line, which ran clockwise, began at its southeast Sherwood also indicates that the east side of corner, “at a Corner stake at high Water mark ruins of the dwelling that had belong to George near the south East [‘East’ interlined] end of a Marable II’s father was attached to the brick 15 foot house, thence [ran] up James River house then in the possession of John Jarrett.

Appendix 3-E 3-E-9 Micajah Perry and Company (Perry, ings were aligned along the river bank in the Lane and Company) to Edward Jaquelin New Town and he identified the site of a brick On November 6, 1710, the Perry firm disposed house on the west side of Kingsmill Creek’s of its lot and dwelling in Jamestown. By that mouth (44JC915). date, John Jarrett was dead and his widow, Joannah, was living elsewhere. John Clayton of 2. A land transaction that took place in Williamsburg, as attorney for Micajah Perry 1689, only a year after the Rev. John Clayton and Company, sold Lot A to Edward Jaquelin, made his map, places the old earthen fort in the who had married William Sherwood’s widow. immediate vicinity of the subsurface features The deed noted that the land being conveyed designated Structure 165. On April 29, 1689, consisted of “that Messuage or Tenement and when Henry Hartwell obtained a patent for 2 1/2 acre of Land . . . formerly in the possession acres 1 rood 24 1/2 poles of land (the 2.4 acres of John Jarret Dec’d and bounded on the South designated Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot C), in- by the River James, East on the Old ffort, North cluded were two half-acre lots patented by on the Land where the Mansion house of the William May in May 1661, which by February Said Edward Jaquelin now Stands [Structure 1677 was in the hands of William White. The 31] and West on the Land late in the possession boundary lines of the Hartwell patent, which of William Marable, All which said Messuage are described precisely and interface with and 1/2 of Land now are in the Actual posses- properties to the north and east, make refer- sion of him the Said Edward Jaquelin.” Perry ence to “ye angular points of ye trench, which had his attorney affix his seal to the deed on faceth two of ye Eastern Bastions of an old September 9, 1721, and on September 11, 1721, Ruin’d Turf fort,” i.e., the remains of the it was acknowledged before the justices of the earthen fort that lay immediately to the west, James City County court (Ambler MS 101). where Structure 165 is located. The Hartwell patent also makes note of its interface with “ye Response to the APVA Memo on Struc- Land now or late of Mr. Sherwood” (Study Unit ture 17 1 Tract D), the acreage “now or late of Holder” 1. The archaeological remains of the “Old (Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot D); the land “now or ffort” (sometimes called “the turf fort”), which late of Tho. Rabley” (Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot is mentioned in the Perry firm’s November 6, B); and the land “late of James Alsop” (Study 1710, deed to Edward Jaquelin, have been Unit 4 Tract L Lot A). All of those patents’ identified and designated Structure 165. They dimensions and orientations are precisely lie to the east of Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot A, at a defined and match up with contiguous proper- site corresponding with the description con- ties and boundary ditches. tained in the Perry firm’s 1710 deed. That document states that Jaquelin’s ½ acre lot was 3. Although APVA researchers have hy- “bounded on the South by the River James” pothesized that the Micajah Perry and Com- and “East on the Old ffort.” On his 1688 map, pany lot enveloped some or all of the old the Rev. John Clayton (1688) identified the site earthen fort, in fact that firm’s 1710 deed was of “ye old fort,” which he sketched as a tetragon for a ½ acre lot that abutted “East on the Old with rounded bastions at each corner, and ffort,” which the Rev. John Clayton in 1688 placed at the lower end of the New Town. In described as “an old Fort of Earth,” whereas text that accompanied the map, Clayton Henry Hartwell’s 1689 patent abutted west informed an English colleague that “There was upon “ye angular points of ye trench which indeed an old Fort of Earth in the Town, being a faceth two of ye Eastern Bastions of an old sort of Tetragone with something like four Ruin’d Turf fort.” Thus, the old earthen (or turf) Bastions at the four corners, as I remember, fort lay between the Perry and Hartwell proper- but the channel lying further off to the middle ties. Moreover, if the Perry and Hartwell of the River there, they let it be demolished and parcels had been adjoining, it is likely that one built that new one [fort] . . . of Brick, which or more of their owners would have so indi- seems little better than a blind Wall to shoot cated. wild Ducks or Geese” (Force 1963:III:12:24). On his 1688 map, Clayton indicated that the 4. Henry Hartwell’s 1689 patent reportedly curved brick fort was in the western end of encompassed the tiny lots owned in succession Jamestown Island. He also showed that build- by William May, Nicholas Meriwether (May’s

Appendix 3-E 3-E-10 heir), and Colonel William White: the acreage cate William May and Colonel White, in succes- upon which the archaeological remains of a sion, owned a house. Structure 86’s directional small house (Structure 86) were identified by J. orientation corresponds closely with the C. Harrington. The plats done by John manner in which it is shown on the plats. Underhill in 1664 and John Soane in 1681 (both of which pertain to Study Unit 1 Tract D) identify the site of a dwelling attributed first to “Mr Mays” and then to “Col. White,” a building Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot C’s Chain of that was located in the immediate vicinity of Structure 86. The survey data provided by Title Underhill in 1664 make reference to “Mr William May’s House,” whereas that provided Philip Ludwell by Soane (in 1681) makes note of “a stake George Marable II’s November 12, 1696, deed before Coll Whites dore” (Nugent 1969- conveying Lot B to William Sherwood indicates 1979:II:331; Patent Book 7:701; Ambler MS that Philip Ludwell was then in possession of 40, 134, 135-136). Harrington concluded that Lot C, which lay contiguous and to the west of Structure 86 was Henry Hartwell’s house and Lot B (Ambler MS 62). It is uncertain when that Structure 34-37 (near which “HH” bottle Ludwell acquired his property. Structure 17’s seals were found) was Hartwell’s kitchen (Cotter Bay 3 and the housing start labeled Bay 4 1958:72-73). Edward Jaquelin, a successful probably are attributable to the Ludwell period merchant and planter, was in possession of of ownership. Study Unit 4 Tract C Lots A and B when he died in November 1739. He bequeathed his Thomas Wells Jamestown Island property to his grandson, On October 26, 1699, Thomas Wells, a Henrico John Ambler I, through daughter Elizabeth County planter with holdings on the James and Jaquelin Ambler (Ambler 1826:26). Appomattox Rivers, patented a fractional portion of Philip Ludwell I’s half-acre lot (34 perches or 0.2125 acre), which abutted east Archaeological features that establish Study upon the old Marable lot (Lot B) (Patent Book Unit 4 Tract C Lot A’s location 9:232; Nugent 1969-1979:II:114, 181, 547). Structure 165: the tetragonal turf or earthen The Wells patent’s verbal boundary description fort, constructed between 1665 and 1667 and states that the lot line ran “from an old Corner ruinous/razed by 1688-1689. It was examined Stake Capt. Marables uper bounds on James during the Jamestown Archaeological Assess- River, along his land and through his kitchen ment. north 33 and 3/4 degrees Easterly 7 and 9/10 2 poles chaine [260.7 feet] to a stake on the Structure 31: the brick dwelling William south side of the mill Roade and along it north Sherwood built between 1677 and 1681. In 69 degrees westerly 2 and 2/10 Chaine [72.6 November 1710 when Edward Jaquelin pur- feet] to another stake neare the Cross Roade chased Study Unit 4 Tract C Lot B from Micajah and thence by the East side thereof South 17 1/ Perry’s agent, he was in possession of the 2 degrees Westerly 7 and 17 Chaine [236.61 Sherwood house, Structure 31, on Study Unit 1 feet] to the first stake” (Patent Book 9:232). Tract D Lot A. That dwelling was described as Significantly, reference was made to the prop- being north of Lot A. It should not be confused erty line’s passing “through his [Captain with the Georgian mansion (Structure 101) Marable’s] kitchen.” built by Richard Ambler during the mid-18th century on a nearby site. It should be noted that mathematically, the boundaries of the three-sided Wells lot fit Structure 17: Bay 2, the Marable unit, which within the Ludwell lot’s perimeters. However, if abutted the easternmost bay of Structure 17, the boundary lines are drawn to scale and the Jarrett/Perry rowhouse, which abutted oriented in accord with the compass bearings east upon the turf fort. cited in the patent description, they do not create a closed figure. Therefore, the Wells Structure 86: the building located where the patent has been reconstructed with lines of the Underhill (1664) and Soane (1681) plats indi- proper length drawn in synch with the verbal

Appendix 3-E 3-E-11 boundary description. However, its lines have tion a celestial body, usually measure clock- been articulated to create a closed figure. The wise in degrees along the horizon from a point Wells patent’s shape should be considered due south”] and including the quantity afore- hypothetical and probably result from a said,” 1/2 acre (Patent Book 6:223). If indeed transcriptionist’s error. the text of the 1667 Ludwell-Stegg patent does not contain errors attributable to one or more Response to the APVA Memo on Struc- transcriptionists, it is quite possible to place it ture 17: Why the half-acre lot patented in numerous locations along urban by Thomas Ludwell and Thomas Stegg II Jamestown’s shoreline (Figure 1). in 1667, at a site adjoining the old statehouse is not associated with Structure 2. The text of the Ludwell-Stegg patent 17, despite the length of patent’s bound- provides some additional information that aries and their directional orientation: gives rise to two hypotheses warranting exploration. One is that the two men obtained a 1. On January 1, 1667, Thomas Ludwell and patent for a ½ acre lot that enveloped a new Thomas Stegg II received a patent for 1/2 acre house that was appended to the western end of of land “for building a house adjacent to the the three houses that “jointly and formerly westernmost of the three houses which jointly were called the old statehouse.” The other is and formerly were called the old statehouse.” that Ludwell and Stegg obtained a patent for a This verbiage suggests strongly that Ludwell ½ acre lot that enveloped the new house they and Stegg had appended a new house to the had built as well as the westernmost unit of the westernmost end of three existing houses that three houses “jointly and formerly were called “jointly and formerly were called the old the old statehouse.” This is an important point, statehouse” (Patent Book 6:223). Ludwell and for the 1667 patent states that the eastern Stegg probably were taking advantage of the boundary line ran “through the said old State 1662 building initiative, which offered a gov- house and the partition wall dividing the sd ernment subsidy and lot to those constructing westernmost house and middle house,” imply- a prototypical 20 foot by 40 foot brick house in ing that both the new house and the Jamestown. From the foregoing information, westernmost house were included in the we know that the structure that Ludwell and conveyance. Stegg built and for which they got a patent in 1667, was a rowhouse unit that was contiguous Thomas Stegg II’s will, which was drafted in to “the three houses which jointly and formerly Jamestown on March 31, 1670, and a deed were called the old statehouse.”2 executed on April 3, 1670, shed some light upon this important issue. On March 31, 1670, The verbal boundary description of the Stegg then stated that he was bequeathing to Ludwell-Stegg patent, which proceeds clock- Thomas Ludwell “all the right, title and interest wise, states that the property line commenced I at present have or hereafter shall have to part “on the South side of the said house close to the of a house bought by the Honorable Thomas wall where the said westernmost house joynes Ludwell and myself of Henry Randolph and now to the middle house, thence runing S. wly 34 in the possession of us together with all my degr 67 feet to high water marke, thence N. interest in the furniture in the house and all wesly 56 degr up the river side 120 feet, thence lands, etc. thereto belonging.” That statement N. Ely 34 degr 181 ffeet & halfe, thence S. Ely 56 indicates that on March 31, 1670, when Stegg degr 120 feet thence S. Wly againe 34 degr made his will, he and Ludwell jointly owned a through the said old State house and the standing structure (P.R.O. Will Register Books partition wall dividing the sd westernmost 69 Duke). In contrast, a land transaction that house and middle house 114 feet & halfe to the occurred on April 3, 1670 (four days after place where it first began: The said Courses Stegg made his will) reveals that the being Correspondent and agreable to the “westernmost house” was then in ruins. In fact, Azimuthes of the foure side walls of the house it was not until nearly a year after Thomas [i.e., “the horizontal angular distance from a Stegg II’s death that Thomas Ludwell pur- fixed reference direction to a position, object chased the “westernmost house” of the trio of or object referent, as to a great circle intersec- buildings that had been used as a statehouse

Appendix 3-E 3-E-12

i t

o h

t u

' e

a 1

20 s

1 d

- o

E k r

6 a

5 o r

e '

S 7 a

gh W i

h 4

S N

e id rs e

. e

1 h

8 t

- p

E u

4 '

3 0 N 2 1 - W 6 5 N

Figure 1. Locations at which the 1667 Ludwell-Stegg patent (if accurately transcribed) could be placed along urban Jamestown’s shoreline.

during the early 1650s. Thus, neither man bound “Easterly upon Mr. James’s land [Study owned the ruinous “westernmost house” at the Unit 1 Tract C], North upon the back river & the time Stegg made his will. Land hereafter mentioned, West upon the [James] river, and south upon the Slash which On April 3, 1670, Henry Randolph purchased lyeth between the Statehouse & the said Mr. from Sir William Berkeley “the westernmost” of [Richard] James.”4 The northerly part of John the three rowhouse units that at various times Baldwin’s patent, which was said to include 5 had served as a statehouse. On the day of the acres and 69 perches (5.431 acres), was “at the sale, the “westernmost house” was described as Old Block House” and began “at the head of a a “ruined messuage [that] was formerly in the Marsh Swamp, issuing into the back River but occupation of Richard Bennett, together with runing to the block house North 34 West down the land whereon the said messuage standeth” behind Marsh belonging to the back River, (McIlwaine Figure 11924:514).3 Randolph, Southerly to a red Oak on a point near the first having purchased the ruinous Bennett (or Mentioned Land, thence South ¾ West [blank] “westernmost”) house, retained it for just over perches, so West half Past North 36 perches a year. He sold it to Thomas Ludwell on April 7, [594 feet] to the place it began at” (Patent Book 1671, noting that it was site of the old Bennett 4:88; Ambler MS 5). house (McIlwaine 1924:514-515). On October 22, 1677, William Sherwood This chronology demonstrates that in 1667 purchased the late John Baldwin’s land from his Thomas Ludwell and Thomas Stegg II patented heir, John Fulcher, three-and-a-half years land on which they had built a house that before repatenting it. In 1681 Sherwood had adjoined the westernmost end of the three unit the Baldwin tract surveyed by James City rowhouse known as the old statehouse. More- County’s official surveyor, John Soane. It was over, they had bought their property from then discovered that the Baldwin property Henry Randolph. When Stegg died, Ludwell contained 28 ½ acres, not 15.431 acres as had inherited his share of the jointly-owned house supposed. Sherwood’s patent, like Baldwin’s, and the furniture it contained. Then, on April 7, described the acreage as two components of a 1671, Ludwell purchased the ruinous whole. Its metes and bounds are described in “westernmost house” from Henry Randolph, the patent that Sherwood obtained and on the the structure formerly occupied by Richard plat that Soane produced, making it easy to Bennett. Therefore, Ludwell owned two adja- retrace the boundary line. The northerly cent house sites and lots: the one he and Stegg portion of the Sherwood patent’s boundary line had patented in 1667 and the one he alone had ran counter-clockwise. It began “at James bought from Henry Randolph in 1671. River at the head of a great slash issuing into the back river and [ran] downe the said slash 3. The patents issued to John Baldwin on East ½ a point Southerly 18 chains [594 feet], October 4, 1656, and to William Sherwood (for thence [headed] North ¾ point Easterly the same land) on April 23, 1681, make it clear [across a sharp point of land] 4 chains [132 that during the 1650s the rowhouse being used feet] to the back river Marsh, and [skirted the as a statehouse was in the western end of edge of the land] up the same to a markt Jamestown Island, not in the New Town, persimon tree under block howse hill point, approximately a quarter of a mile away from thence [extended in a straight line] under the Structure 17. The location of the Baldwin- said hill West 6 chaines [198 feet] to James Sherwood parcel (Study Unit 1 Tract E) is river and down it againe to the first menconed clearly established by a plat that surveyor John slash, including 8 acres.” The boundary of the Soane made in August 1681. On October 4, second (or southerly) component commenced 1656, John Baldwin secured a patent for 15 where the first left off. It ran in a clockwise acres and 69 perches (15.431 acres) of land direction “again downe the said slash 43 adjoining the isthmus that led to Jamestown chaines [1,419 feet] to Mr. Richard James land Island. The text of his patent describes his [Study Unit 1 Tract C] and along it South 23 acreage as two contiguous pieces of one parcel. chains [759 feet] to a branch of pitch and Tarr The southerly part of the Sherwood property swamp, thence [ran west] up the said branch to (which purportedly included 10 acres) was James River and [north] up the river to the

Appendix 3-E 3-E-14

ood’s acres at the 28of western end Jamestown ½

sh ar M de oa R

eek Back Cr Block house hill

Bay Sandy Below: John1681 SherwWilliam Below: Soane’splat of

Figure 2. Figure Island (Ambler IslandMS (Ambler 134). Above: a digital version of the Soane plat.

Figure 3. Jean-Nicholas Desandrouins’ map, “Plan du terein a la Rive Gauche de la Riviere de James,” 1781-1782, which includes the western end of Jamestown Island.

s r

r e iv R ck Ba

Figure 4. The Soane plat (in red) superimposed upon the topography of Jamestown Island’s western end.

place it begann, containing 20 ½ acres” (Patent to William Sherwood. Thus, the Talbotts were in Book 7:97). 5 possession of their property from October 17, 1655, to February 25, 1663, and the Marables The plat that John Soane produced for William (George I and George II) were in possession of Sherwood in 1681 is highly detailed (Ambler it from February 25,1663, to November MS 134). It shows part of the isthmus that 12,1696, leaving no gaps in the chain of title, connected Jamestown Island to the mainland which spans the year during which Thomas and it identifies the site of the blockhouse hill, Ludwell and Thomas Stegg II secured their the persimmon trees that were used as a patent adjoining the old statehouse. reference point in the patent, and the main road into Jamestown Island. The Soane plat As the east wall of the late George Marable I’s also identifies the boundary line between house adjoined “Easterly to the brick howse William Sherwood’s 28 ½ acres and Richard and land now in the possession of John James I’s property (Study Unit 1 Tract C) Jarrett,” which abutted east upon the turf fort (Figure 2). Right after the Revolutionary War, (Structure 165) and the Marable land abutted when Jean-Nicholas Desandrouins (1781-1782) “northerly towards the howse & land of John made a map that included the western end of Harris, Taylor” (Study Unit 1 Tract F), there are Jamestown Island, the isthmus was eroded but no known structures in this vicinity that lack recognizable, as were the distinctive land forms attribution and potentially could have been a that John Soane depicted in 1681 when making statehouse (Ambler MS 62). In 1696 when a plat of William Sherwood’s 28 ½ acres (Figure George Marable II transferred his lot and 3). ruinous house to William Sherwood, reference was made to the Harris patent. The west wall of Despite the eventual erosion of Jamestown the Marable house reportedly abutted “west- Island’s isthmus, remnants of the distinctive erly on the ruins of the brick howse & halfe acre land forms shown on the 1681 Soane plat and of land belonging to phillip Ludwell Esqr,” the 1781-1782 Desandrouins map are recogniz- which research suggests was the westernmost able (Figure 4), as is the “slash” that in 1656 unit of Structure 17 (Ambler MS 62, 65). separated the south side of the Baldwin patent Significantly, the Woodhouse/ Talbott/ (later, William Sherwood’s) from “the state- Marable property’s chain of title, which ex- house.” This makes it clear that the “old State tends from 1655 to 1699, makes no reference to house” mentioned in the 1667 Ludwell-Stegg the presence of a statehouse in that vicinity or patent was in the western end of Jamestown a building that was used as a statehouse. Island in the immediate vicinity of the long Moreover, the Baldwin patent, Soane plat, and ridge that contains Structure 144. Interest- Sherwood lease place the statehouse in the ingly, Desandrouins indicated that in 1781 western part of the island, on or near the long there was a building on that ridge, not far from ridge containing Structure 144. the James River. THE STRUCTURE 115 LOT (STUDY 4. In addition to the foregoing evidence, it should be recalled that on October 17, 1655, UNIT 4 TRACT K) Mrs. Ann Talbott purchased a ½ lot from Thomas Woodhouse. Sometime prior to Febru- ary 25, 1663, Mrs. Talbott’s heirs sold her ½ The Chain of Title for Study Unit 4 acre lot to George Marable I, who repatented it, Tract K Lot A and Bay 1 stating that it was the same parcel that Mrs. Talbott had purchased from Thomas Philip Ludwell I Woodhouse on October 17, 1655, that con- On July 8, 1680, Colonel Philip Ludwell I asked tained his (Marable’s) “now dwelling house” the assembly for a 50 year lease “for the two (Patent Book 3:331; 5:253-254; Ambler MS 62). houses in James City now lying in ruines, the After George Marable I’s death, the property One that house where the gaole was kept and descended to his son, George Marable II, who the other that next adjoyning to it, together on November 12, 1696, sold the property and with the lands belonging to them.” Ludwell’s the ruins of his late father’s brick house (Bay 2) request was granted. As the burgesses had just

Appendix 3-E 3-E-18 assigned George Lee and Colonel Nathaniel Jamestown was to be converted into a prison, Bacon the houses “on the East End of those in July 1680 one of the government-owned lately granted to Coll. Phillip Ludwell,” Ludwell bays in a rowhouse (most likely Bay 2 of was in possession of Bays 1 and 2, the western Structure 115) was identified as “that house half of Structure 115. Ludwell’s lease, like Lee’s where the gaole was kept.” It is perhaps signifi- and Bacon’s, was conditional upon his com- cant that the 1950s archaeologists recovered mencing to rebuild the houses within a year the left half of a male pelvis and left leg in Well and keeping them in good repair (McIlwaine 19, 14 feet north of the party wall between 1905-1915:1659-1693:152). Structure 115 Bays 2 and 3, and that in 1710 an Indian slave named Salvador, convicted of a Colonel Nathaniel Bacon capital crime, was executed, drawn, and On May 22, 1684, Colonel Nathaniel Bacon quartered. Afterward, one of his quarters was requested the “stack of building belonging to put on display in Jamestown, at the ferry the Country, formerly granted to Philip Ludwell landing as a gruesome reminder to would-be Esq. for 50 years.” As Ludwell declared that he insurgents (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1659- was voluntarily relinquishing the lease he had 1693:152; Cotter 1958:127, 157). been granted, a 50 year lease was given to Bacon. He, like Ludwell, had two years in which Phillip Ludwell I to rebuild the houses (McIlwaine 1905- On July 8, 1680, Colonel Phillip Ludwell I 1915:1659-1693:245, 248). There is no evi- obtained a 50 year lease “for the two houses in dence that Bacon exercised his right to rebuild James City now lying in ruines, the One that Bays 1 and 2 of Structure 115 within the pro- house where the gaole was kept and the other scribed time. Thus, after two years, the condi- that next adjoyning to it, together with the tional lease he received in July 1684 would lands belonging to them.” As the burgesses have become null and void. The absence of simultaneously assigned to George Lee and subsequent land transfers suggests that no one Colonel Nathaniel Bacon the houses “on the else tried to lease the property from the gov- East End of those lately granted to Coll. Phillip ernment. Archaeological evidence indicates Ludwell,” it is evident that Ludwell received the that Bay 1 was not rebuilt. western half of the building (Bays 1 and 2 of Structure 115), whereas Bacon and Lee were The Chain of Title for Study Unit 4 assigned Bays 3 and 4 (McIlwaine 1905- Tract K Lot B and Bay 2 1915:1659-1693:152). Colonel Nathaniel Bacon James City County Justices As noted in the history of Lot A and Bay 1, on On September 17, 1668, the justices of James May 22, 1684, Colonel Nathaniel Bacon asked City County asked the House of Burgesses for for “the stack of building belonging to the the right to use “one of the Countrie Brick Country, formerly granted to Philip Ludwell houses” as a prison. They pointed out that Esq. for 50 years.” At that point, Ludwell James City’s sheriff was responsible for “fellons formally relinquished his claim to both and other publique prisoners [that] are fre- rowhouse units and the burgesses assigned quently brought thither from all parts of the them to Bacon. Bacon, like Ludwell, was given a country” for trial in the General Court, as well 50 year lease that was contingent upon his as those to be tried in the county court. The rebuilding the ruinous houses within a pro- local justices’ request was approved, but the scribed time (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1659- burgesses stipulated that James City County 1693:245, 248). As there is no evidence that had to cover the cost of converting the house Bacon exercised his right to rebuild his into a jail and that when the county’s seven rowhouse units, thought to be Bays 1 and 2 of year lease expired, the building had to be left Structure 115, the conditional lease Bacon “in sufficient repaire” (McIlwaine 1905- received in July 1684 would have become null 1915:1659-1693:53). Under the terms of this and void in 1686. agreement, James City County’s lease ran until at least September 1675. Although it is uncer- In 1694, the eastern bay of Structure 115 that tain which of the brick “country houses” in had been assigned to Colonel Nathaniel Bacon

Appendix 3-E 3-E-19 in 1684 was in other hands (see ahead). his death coincided with Richard Ambler’s purposeful acquisition of substantial quantities Supplementary Information of land on Jamestown Island, which he devel- When Colonel Nathaniel Bacon, a childless oped into a family seat. widower, made his March 15, 1692, will, he made a number of specific but modest bequests to friends and members of his extended family. The Chain of Title for Study Unit 4 6 However, he left the bulk of his real and personal estate to his sister’s daughter, Abigail Tract K Lot C and Bay 3 Smith Burwell, the wife of Lewis Burwell II. Bacon stipulated that his property was to Richard Auborne (Awborne) descend from Abigail to her sons, Nathaniel Official records dating to 1677 and 1680 reveal and James Burwell, and to grandson, Lewis that Richard Auborne (Awborne), clerk of the Burwell III (York County Deeds, Orders, Wills General Court, was residing in Bay 3 of Struc- 9:116-118). As it turned out, Abigail Smith ture 115 on September 19, 1676, when Burwell outlived Colonel Nathaniel Bacon by Nathaniel Bacon’s rebels put Jamestown to the only a few months, for she died on November torch. Auborne had been clerk since April 1667 12, 1692 (Meyer et al. 1987:145). At that point, (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1659-1693:73, 78, 142- life-rights in the property she had inherited 143, 152; 1924:513; Ambler MS 16). After from Bacon would have descended to her Bacon’s Rebellion was quelled, several people husband, Lewis Burwell II, and from him, to her sought to lease the ruins of the house Richard sons and grandson. Auborne had occupied, a structure eventually discovered to have been privately owned. That In 1698 Lewis Burwell II represented Auborne was still alive, yet failed to assert a Jamestown in the colony’s assembly, an claim to the building, suggests strongly that he indication that he owned property there, was a tenant (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660- probably Study Unit 4 Tract S, which had 1693:73, 152). belonged to Colonel Nathaniel Bacon (Leonard 1976:58). Burwell, as his wife’s heir, would Theophilus Hone have been in possession of the Bacon acreage in On February 20, 1677, Major Theophilus Hone Jamestown and therefore would have met (Howne) asked the assembly for permission to eligibility requirements for holding office. lease the ruins of the houses that Richard When Lewis Burwell II died in December 1710 Auborne and Arnold Cassinett had occupied. he was a member of the governor’s council. At Hone’s lease was contingent upon his rebuild- that point, son Nathaniel Burwell commenced ing “the two houses wherein Mr. Richard serving as Jamestown’s burgess, an indication Auborne and Arnold Cassinett lately lived in that he owned land in Jamestown. When James City.” He was supposed to commence Nathaniel died in 1734, his son, Lewis Burwell construction within a year and “constantly III, inherited part of Colonel Nathaniel Bacon’s keepe all the sayd buildings in good and suffi- property. Within two years time, Lewis III cient repair” (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1659- began serving as Jamestown’s burgess and he 1693:73, 78). Hone, however, failed to rebuild represented the community through 1740. the ruinous houses and his conditional agree- Thus, he (like his father and grandfather before ment became null and void. him) owned land in Jamestown. This chain of events raises the distinct possibility that the John Quigley Burwells successively came into possession of On June 29, 1680, Mr. John Quigley asked the Colonel Nathaniel Bacon’s acreage, probably assembly for a lease for “80 foot of the Study Unit 4 Tract S, the 3 3/8 acre tract that countreys houses.” The burgesses agreed to he patented on May 29, 1683 (Leonard award him a 50 year lease “upon condition that 1976:58; Stanard 1965:44; York County Deeds, he beginnes to repair the same within one year Orders, Wills 9:116-118; 14:64). It is uncertain and finish the same in two years . . . and con- what happened to the Burwell family’s stantly keep the same in goode repaire” Jamestown property after Lewis Burwell III’s (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660-1693:127, 136). 1744 decease. However, it should be noted that Meanwhile, the Governor and Council received

Appendix 3-E 3-E-20 petitions from George Lee and Colonel owners, William and Elizabeth Brown. Mean- Nathaniel Bacon, who asked for the right to while, the government seems to have let the lease precisely the same rowhouse units. They matter drop (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660- forwarded those documents to the assembly as 1693:142-143, 152; 1918:10, 56; Lee MS 51 ff the official custodian of public property. Lee 669, 671). From that time on, Lots C and D and and Bacon seem to have been given preferential Bays 3 and 4 were treated as a single entity and treatment and sometime prior to July 6, 1680, shared a common chain of title (see ahead). John Quigley withdrew his request (McIlwaine 1918:10). The Chain of Title for Study Unit 4 Colonel Nathaniel Bacon Tract K Lot D and Bay 4 On July 6, 1680, the assembly reviewed the petitions of Colonel Nathaniel Bacon and Arnold (Arnall) Cassina (Cassinett, George Lee, who asked for a 50 year lease for Cossina) “the ruins of two brick houses burnt in the late Although very little is known about Arnold Rebellion” along with “the lands belonging to Cassina, official records indicate that at the them.” Both men expressed a preference for the time of Bacon’s Rebellion he was residing in the houses formerly occupied by Richard Auborne easternmost unit (Bay 4) of the Structure 115 and Arnall (or Arnold) Cossina (Cassinet) (Bays rowhouse, which was destroyed by fire on 3 and 4). The Council, which felt that “there is September 19, 1676 (McIlwaine 1905- more reason that Coll. Bacon have the house 1915:1659-1693:73, 78, 152). That several than Mr. Lee, as being more likely speedily to people sought to lease the ruins of the house build it,” informed the assembly that “Its most Cassina had occupied (a structure later discov- fit Mr. Auditor Bacon should have his decision ered to have been privately owned) indicates [choice] in the said houses and Mr. Lee the that he was a tenant, not the actual owner of the other House” (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660- property. 1693:142-143, 152). Thus, they recommended that each man be allowed to lease one house and that Bacon (a Council member) be permit- Theophilus Hone ted to have first choice. On February 20, 1677, Major Theophilus Hone asked the assembly for the right to rebuild “well When the burgesses reached a decision on July and substantially att his owne cost” the “two 8, 1680, they acquiesced to the Council’s houses wherein Mr. Richard Auborne and recommendation and gave Colonel Bacon a 50 Arnold Cassinett lately lived in James City.” He year lease for one of the ruinous houses and was allocated a 50 year lease with the provision assigned the other one to Mr. George Lee. that he had to rebuild the houses within a Bacon chose “the same [house] which did proscribed time and leave them in good repair belong to Mr. Auborne.” The leases Bacon and when his lease expired (McIlwaine 1905- Lee were given were contingent upon their 1915:1659-1693:73,78). Hone apparently commencing to rebuild their respective houses failed to uphold his end of the bargain by within a year and they were obliged to keep rebuilding the houses, with the result that his them in good repair (McIlwaine 1905- lease became null and void. 1915:1659-1693:152). Prior to Bacon’s Rebellion, Hone had been The assembly’s minutes indicate that burgesses living near William May’s adjoining ½ acre lots, had some serious doubts about whether the Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot C Parcels 1 and 2, properties were governmentally-owned, for which contain Structure 86. A November 20, Bacon’s and Lee’s leases were deemed valid 1673, deed for the sale of Walter Chiles II’s 3 ½ “Provided that they [Bays 3 and 4] be the acre lot (Study Unit 1 Tract F Lots A and B) to Countries houses.” As it turned out, they were York County merchant John Page reveals that not. Documents on file at the Virginia Historical Hone had been “lately in the tennure & Society reveal that on April 7, 1685, George occupacon” of “a Brick howse or tenement Lee purchased both rowhouse units and the conteyning in length 37 foote” (Structure 138) land upon which they stood from the rightful that Chiles had built upon his property in close

Appendix 3-E 3-E-21 proximity to the Kemp house (Structure 44). asked to choose between the two, he selected By 1675 Hone had moved next door to Struc- “the same which did belong to Mr. Auborne.” ture 1 Tract D Lot A, where he was residing in This left Lee with Cossina’s house. The leases the “country house” (Structure 38) on what was Bacon and Lee were given were contingent then Jonathan Newell’s property (Ambler MS upon their commencing to rebuild their respec- 24, 26; McIlwaine 1924:221; Bruce 1898:68). A tive bays within a year and “Provided that they February 6, 1677, document signed by David [the properties Bacon and Lee wanted to lease] Newell, confirming a February 7, 1676, bill of be the Countries houses” (McIlwaine 1905- sale for one acre of the “country house” lot to 1915:1660-1693:142-143, 152; 1918:10). Two William Sherwood and his mortgagee William deeds on file at the Virginia Historical Society Claiborne, makes reference to “a certaine reveal that they were not. Instead, the ruinous messuage or Tenement with the outhouses, rowhouses and the land upon which they stood Land and appurtenances thereto belonging were privately owned. formerly in ye possession of majr Theop: Hone.” Newell reassigned “the ruines of the Unified Chain of Title for Study Unit aforesaid howse . . . in which ye said Majr Hone formerly lived, with 1 full acre of ground” to 4 Tract K Lots C and D and Bays 3 William Sherwood. On April 23, 1678, Newell and 4 acknowledged the sale in court (Ambler MS 26). Thus, Theophilus Hone was residing in Thomas Woodhurst (Woodhouse?) Walter Chiles II’s 37-foot-long brick house on On April 7, 1685, when William and Elizabeth Study Unit 1 Tract F Lot B (Structure138) Brown of Surry County sold their 3/4 acre lot immediately prior to the sale of the property and its improvements to George Lee, their on November 20, 1673, and his presence is property was described as “one part of a documented in that vicinity in 1670. By 1675 certain tract of land lying in James City being he had moved next door to the “country formerly the estate of Thomas Woodhurst house” (Structure 38) and probably was living deceased” (Lee MS 51 f 668). It is uncertain there at the time of Bacon’s Rebellion. Thus, he whether the late Thomas Woodhurst owned the was not in residence in Bay 2 of Structure 144, eastern half of Tract K before or after Bacon’s as has been hypothesized by APVA research- Rebellion. As the Browns’ deed to George Lee is ers. the only documentary reference to Thomas Woodhurst that has come to light, the possibil- John Quigley ity exists that he was Thomas Woodhouse, In June 1680 Mr. John Quigley submitted a whose name is associated with at least four petition to the House of Burgesses, requesting other properties on Jamestown Island. He, like “80 foot of the countreys houses.” The bur- the Browns, had close ties to Surry County. gesses agreed to award him a 50 year conditional lease (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660- William Brown 1693:127, 136). A month later, George Lee and On April 7, 1685, William and Elizabeth Brown Colonel Nathaniel Bacon filed a petition, asking of Surry County sold George Lee “one part of a for precisely the same property. By the time a certain tract of land lying in James City being decision was made, Quigley had withdrawn his formerly the estate of Thomas Woodhurst request (McIlwaine 1918:10). deceased, bounding upon the land of Mr. William Sherwood easterly [Study Unit 1 Tract George Lee F]; and as far as the two houses extend of Mr. As noted in the history of Lot C Bay 3, on July George Lee, the one being by him built and 8, 1680, George Lee and Colonel Nathaniel inhabited the other ruinous being westerly; as Bacon asked the assembly for a 50 year lease farre as the Common road Southerly & to the for “the ruins of two brick houses burnt in the outside of the two houses Northerly, ye whole late Rebellion” along with “the lands belonging containing three quarters of an acre more or to them.” Both men expressed a preference for less” (Lee MS 51 f 668). Thus, the western and the houses formerly occupied by Richard northern walls of the westernmost building Auborne and Arnall or Arnold Cossina (Bay 3, which in 1685 still was ruinous) defined (Cassinet) (Bays 3 and 4). When Bacon was the western and northern boundary lines of the

Appendix 3-E 3-E-22 3/4 acre lot and the Sherwood property and George Lee the common road marked its eastern and As noted above, on April 7, 1685, George Lee southern bounds, respectively. purchased a 3/4 acre parcel (Lots C and D) from William and Elizabeth Brown of Surry Using an electronic map and the descriptive County, land upon which he already had information contained in the Browns’ deed to undertaken construction activities and erected George Lee, an attempt was made to identify a habitable house. Lee, it should be recalled, the boundaries of the 3/4 acre lot that changed had acquired a conditional lease for Lot D and hands. Using the northwest corner of Bay 3 as a its rowhouse ruins on July 6, 1680 (Lee MS 51 reference point, a straight line was extended to 668; McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660-1693:152). He the boundary ditch (Ditch 9) known to define or a subsequent owner may have rebuilt Bay 3 the west side of William Sherwood’s property, at a later date. Study Unit 1 Tract F. When this distance (the 3/ 4 acre parcel’s northern boundary line) was On July 5, 1681, George Lee notified the jus- measured, it came to just under 181 feet. That tices of Surry County that he had moved from having been ascertained, plane geometry was their jurisdiction to Jamestown. The court used to calculate the length of the 3/4 acre records state that, “Whereas George Lee hath parcel’s western boundary line, i.e., the dis- beene for these severall years last past an tance from the northwest corner of Bay 3 to the inhabitant in the county of Surry . . . these are common road. As the area of a rectangle is to inform anyone that hath any commerce, found by multiplying the length of its base business or accounts against him that at James times its height (a=bh), and as 3/4 of an acre of Towne in James City County he will and will- ground is equivalent to 32,670 square feet, the ingly answer their concerns” (Surry County length of the northern boundary line (181 feet) Deeds, Wills &c. 1671-1684:287). It is likely was divided into the lot’s square footage that when George Lee moved to Jamestown, he (32,670 square feet). The result was 180.497 took up residence in Bay 4 of Structure 115, the feet, almost precisely the distance from the only Jamestown Island property with which his northwest corner of Bay 3 to Ditch 66 (181 name is associated. feet). This simple exercise in plane geometry not only indicates that the 3/4 acre parcel the A 1698 deed reveals that on April 12, 1692, Browns sold to George Lee was nearly square, it when George Lee prepared his will, he left his also identifies Ditch 66 as the edge of the 3/4 acre lot in Jamestown “and all houses and common road that was in use in 1685, when the appurtenances thereto belonging” to his wife, Browns sold their lot to George Lee. Sarah, “for the rest of her natural life and the remainder or reversion in fee [simple] unto As the text of the Brown-Lee deed makes Robert and George Nicholson and their heirs” reference to George Lee’s two houses, “the one (Lee MS 51 f 671). Thus, Sarah had a life interest being by him built and inhabited the other in her late husband’s property in Jamestown, ruinous being westerly,” Lee appears to have but the Nicholsons were his reversionary heirs rebuilt the easternmost rowhouse unit (Bay 4), (Surry County Deeds, Wills &c 1694-1709:70). in accord with the conditional lease he received It should be noted that this is the only from the assembly in July 1680, nearly five Jamestown property with which George Lee’s years before he actually purchased the land name is associated. upon which it and the ruinous Bay 3 stood (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1659-1693:174). This Sarah Lee (Mrs. George Lee, then Mrs. sequence of events suggests strongly that Smith) (life-rights) George Lee rebuilt Bay 4 of Structure 115 The widowed Sarah Lee apparently continued sometime after July 8, 1680, when he obtained to reside in the rowhouse bay that she and her a 50 year lease from the assembly and most late husband had occupied. Four years after his likely before he learned that the property was death (and her remarriage to someone named privately owned. Moreover, he undertook Smith), reference was made to the suitability of construction before he had secured an unen- “the house where Mrs. Sarah Lee alias Smith cumbered title to the Browns’ land. lately lived” as a meeting place for the assembly (McIlwaine 1925-1945:I:410). On Decem-

Appendix 3-E 3-E-23 ber 7, 1696, Sarah Lee Smith and her former house where Mrs. Sarah Lee alias Smith lately husband’s reversionary heirs, Robert and lived now in the possession of Mr. John Tullitt George Nicholson, sold their respective inter- is the most convenient place for the assembly ests in the late George Lee’s Jamestown prop- to meet.” Therefore, it was “ordered that the erty to George Harvey, who retained it until said Tullitt do repair and fit up the said house, October 1697 (Lee MS 51 ff 669, 671). These as he shall be directed by his Excellency, and transactions are summarized in Dyonysia that he lay his claim for the charge thereof Ravenscroft Hadley’s 1698 deed to John Tullitt before the next assembly.” On May 11, 1699, (see ahead). John Tullitt requested compensation for having outfitted his house to accommodate the assem- George Harvey bly and providing its members with a place in On December 7, 1696, Sarah Lee Smith and the which to meet. He wasn’t satisfied with the sum Nicolsons’ sold their respective interests in the that was offered and on May 22 asked for more late George Lee’s property to George Harvey. (McIlwaine 1925-1945:I:410; 1905-1915:1695- He kept the eastern half of Tract K (Lots C and D 1702:160, 175; Sainsbury 1964:17:209). and Bays 3 and 4) until October 13, 1697, at which time he conveyed the land and its Although relatively little is known about John improvements to Thomas Hadley (Lee MS 51 ff Tullitt as a private individual, governing 669, 671). This transaction is mentioned in officials frequently called upon him to under- Dyonysia Ravenscroft Hadley’s 1698 deed to take construction projects. In 1700 Tullitt was John Tullitt (see ahead). authorized to supply brick for the new capitol building that was to be erected in Williamsburg. Thomas Hadley In October 1709 he offered to erect the Thomas Hadley, who purchased George college’s main building for 2,000 pounds Harvey’s 3/4 acre lot and buildings on October sterling, as long as he was allowed to take wood 13, 1697, may have become ill shortly after from the college land and workmen would be purchasing the property. At the close of 1697 brought from England. Tullitt received permis- he “by his last will in writing of December [he] sion to proceed with work on the college and in gave and bequeathed unto his wife Dyonysia November 1711 received a payment of 500 Hadley all his real estate and personal.” Shortly pounds. Two months later he was paid 400 thereafter, Mrs. Dyonysia Savage Ravenscroft pounds for building the college hall (McIlwaine Hadley commenced serving as her late 1925-1945:I:331; Byrd 1942:99, 116, 286, 351, husband’s executrix (Lee MS 51 ff 669, 671). 384, 434, 476, 522, 551-552).

Dyonysia Savage Ravenscroft Hadley Undated notations on the back of the June 8, (Mrs. Thomas) 1698, deed from Dyonysia Hadley to John Mrs. Dyonysia Savage Ravenscroft Hadley, Tullitt indicate that the eastern half of Tract K having inherited fee simple ownership of the passed from “Tullitt to Ludwell” at a subse- eastern half of Tract K, disposed of it on June 8, quent but undisclosed date. Also jotted upon 1698. It was then that she sold the late Thomas the back of the deed were two lines of text. One Hadley’s property (which she described as reads, “Conveyances of this are Col. Brown to “houses in Jamestown”) to John Tullitt (Tullett) Lee, by will to Nicholson, by Nicholson to of James City Parish and County. Mrs. Hadley Harvey, Harvey to Hadley and Hadley to identified herself as “executrix and legatee of Tullett.” The other states: “For houses in Thomas Hadley.” On the back of the Hadley- Jamestown” (Lee MS 51 f 671). As John Tullitt Tullitt deed was written “For houses in was in possession of Lots C and D until at least Jamestown” (Lee MS 51 ff 669, 671). 1699, the Ludwell who came into possession of the Tullitt property would have been Philip John Tullitt (Tullett) Ludwell II, for Philip I and Thomas Ludwell John Tullitt (Tullett), having purchased the already were dead. eastern half of Tract K from Mrs. Dyonysia Hadley on June 6, 1698, began occupying the Philip Ludwell II property (Lee MS 51 f 671). On February 25, Philip Ludwell II, who acquired John Tullitt’s 1699, the Governor’s Council noted that “the property around 1699, died on January 11,

Appendix 3-E 3-E-24 1727, leaving as his primary heir 11-year-old Ludwell.” By that date, the 21 year lease Philip Ludwell III (Bruce 1899-1900:356; William and Hannah Philippa had signed in Morton 1956:238). 1771 would have expired (Stanard 1911:289; 1913:395-416; 1930:36; Fredericksburg Circuit Philip Ludwell III Court 1796). It is uncertain what became of the Philip Ludwell III, his father’s primary heir, Jamestown lots William Ludwell Lee inherited. made his will on February 28, 1767, and died He may have disposed of them around the time less than a month later. He distributed his real he was raising the funds he needed to build a and personal estate in Virginia among his three new home at Green Spring or he simply may daughters, only one of whom was an adult. The have abandoned them. This issue is clouded by remarkably detailed inventory of Philip the fact that real estate tax rolls for James City Ludwell III’s estate links his personal belong- County do not include lots at Jamestown, ings with the properties at which they were which by that date had lost its representation in located. Although household furnishings, the assembly. agricultural equipment, livestock and slaves were attributed to Green Spring and its subsid- William Ludwell Lee died at Green Spring on iaries or quarters, no personal belongings were January 24, 1803. With the exception of a few credited to Jamestown, where he reportedly special bequests, the bulk of his real and had one lot that contained improvements and personal estate descended to his sisters, another that was vacant (Stanard 1911:288- Cornelia Hopkins and Portia Hodgson. Brother- 289; 1913:395-416). in-law William Hodgson, who served as the decedent’s executor, commenced settling his Hannah Philippa Ludwell and William estate (Mumford 1921:VI:163-164). It is likely Lee that if Lee hadn’t sold his Jamestown lots prior Philip Ludwell III’s eldest daughter, Hannah to his death, Hodgson did. Edward Jaquelin (or Philippa, inherited his lots at Jamestown. his successor Richard Ambler) probably During the summer of 1770, when the Ludwell purchased them, perhaps for back taxes, for no estate was partitioned, Hannah Philippa (the references to the Ludwell-Lee property at wife of William Lee) received Green Spring Jamestown have come to light that postdate plantation, some real estate in Williamsburg 1795. and “one improved and one unimproved lot in Jamestown” (Stanard 1929:293-294). In 1771 Cultural features that link Study Unit 4 Hannah Philippa and William Lee placed her Tract K’s Boundaries (the Structure 115 lot) Jamestown lots and some other Ludwell land in to the landscape: the hands of trustees, who were authorized to lease them to tenants for up to 21 years or three lives (Stanard 1911:288-289; 1913:395- In an April 7, 1685, deed, William and Elizabeth 416; Lee et al. 1771). Hannah Philippa and Brown conveyed a 3/4 acre lot to George Lee William Lee’s unimproved” lot in Jamestown (Lee MS 51 f 668). The Sherwood property may have been the 3/4 acre that enveloped the (defined on its west by Ditch 9) and the Com- easternmost end of Structure 115, Study Unit 4 mon Road (Ditch 66) marked this lot’s eastern Tract K, for archaeological evidence suggests and southern boundaries and the western and that those rowhouse bays were gone by the northern walls of Bay 3 (the westernmost early 1700s (Cotter 1958:127). building, which in April 1685 still was ruinous) defined the course of the western and northern William Ludwell Lee boundary lines. When William Lee died at Green Spring on June 27, 1795, his 22-year-old son, William Ludwell The following boundaries, which were cited, Lee, inherited “all that estate real, personal and have been linked to cultural features. The mixed, lying in James City County, James northwest corner of Bay 3 was used as a refer- Town, and the City of Williamsburg, which ence point. descended to his mother, my late dear wife, Hannah Philippa Lee, as coheiress and legatee 1) “bounding upon the land of Mr. William of her late father, the Honorable Philip Sherwood easterly”

Appendix 3-E 3-E-25 The eastern boundary line of Tract K followed 1. From at least 1670 until September 1676 Ditch 9, which also delimited the western Theophilus Hone’s presence in the New Town is boundary line of Study Unit 1 Tract F, 3 1/2 well documented. He resided first in Structure acres that came into the possession of William 138 (the 37-foot-long brick house Walter Chiles Sherwood sometime prior to October 27, 1682 II had built upon his 3 ½ acre lot, Study Unit 1 (Ambler MS 34). Tract F) and then in Structure 38, the “country house,” where he was living at the time of 2) “and as far as the two houses extend of Mr. Bacon’s Rebellion. No documentary evidence George Lee, the one being by him built and whatsoever has come to light that links Hone inhabited the other ruinous being westerly;” with Structure 144, but he did obtain a lease for a portion of Structure 115. The western boundary line of Tract K commenced at the northwest corner of Bay 3, which 2. In July 1680, the rowhouse units occu- was ruinous. The boundary line followed the pied by Richard Auborne and Arnold Cossina, course of the party wall between Bays 2 and 3 which were destroyed during Bacon’s Rebel- and then continued southward until it inter- lion, were tentatively assigned to Colonel sected with the Common Road (Ditch 66). The Nathaniel Bacon and George Lee, “Provided distance from the northwest corner of Bay 3 to they be the Countries houses.” Two deeds at the the Common Road was 180.497 feet, almost Virginia Historical Society reveal that both precisely the distance from the northwest ruinous rowhouse units were, in fact, privately corner of Bay 3 to Ditch 9, the Sherwood lot. owned. Documentary evidence indicates that George Lee rebuilt upon the property prior to 3) “as farre as the Common road Southerly” the time he purchased it from the legitimate owners, the Browns. The description of the ¾ The lot’s southern boundary line abutted the acre lot Lee acquired from the Browns in April Common Road, which is defined by Ditch 66. 1685 abutted east upon William Sherwood’s land and south upon the Common road. The 4) “& to the outside of the two houses North- land adjoining Structure 144 is not contiguous erly,” to William Sherwood’s property on the east nor does it abut south upon the Common Road. This boundary line, which commenced at the northwest corner of Bay 3, extended eastward 3. The eastern units of Structure 115 are along the back wall of Structure 115 and contin- situated upon the only Jamestown property ued eastward until it intersected with Ditch 9, that George Lee owned. It should be noted that the western boundary of Study Unit 1 Tract F. prior to April 7, 1685, George Lee had built a This boundary line was just under 181 feet in house at the easternmost end of Structure 115 length. and was living there at the time he consum- mated his land purchase. Moreover, on July 5, The deed from the Browns to Lee noted that “ye 1681, Lee publicly announced that he had whole [lot] containing three quarters of an acre moved from Surry to Jamestown. more or less.” As it measured 180.497 feet by nearly 181 feet, the lot was nearly square. The 4. Edward Chilton’s April 16, 1683, patent lot that enveloped the western end of Structure for Study Unit 4 Tract P reveals that by that 115 (and Bays 1 and 2) was 3/4 acre in size and date Philip Ludwell I was in possession of at followed the back wall of the rowhouse and the least part of the property associated with party wall between Bays 2 and 3. Structure 144. If Theophilus Hone or George Lee were in possession of Bays 2, 3, or 4 of Response to the APVA memo (Why it is Structure 144, Chilton’s property also would unlikely that Structure 115’s recon- have abutted theirs. In 1694, when Philip structed chain of title is applicable to Ludwell II patented a long, narrow piece of Structure 144, as proposed by APVA land, which boundary lines extended north and researchers in their May-June 2002 south of his three ruinous rowhouse units. memo): Thus, the Ludwell property should not be confused with that of George Lee, for his deed

Appendix 3-E 3-E-26 from the Browns indicates that the property and that the said store be boarded within and line ran through the back wall of the buildings without and well filled up with clay or mortar, he was acquiring: the easternmost units of and double covered.” Another storehouse was Structure 115. to be built “which may be capable for the reception of the other stores of goods and that 5. The reference to the “burying place by the same be double covered and that there be James City” comes from the September 3, also built a guardhouse of 60 foot in length with 1623, will of John Atkins. He instructed his two outside chimneys.” Major John Page was to executors to see that he was “buried in the oversee construction and carpenters were to usual burying place by James City” (Withington be pressed into service (McIlwaine 1905- 1980:35-36). Months later, on April 17, 1624, 1915:1660-1693:71, 78). As the magazine at George Harrison asked “to be buried at the Middle Plantation was to be used as a tempo- church at James City” (Harrison 1624). It be rary storage area, the new facilities may have significant that on November 4, 1639, the been located at Jamestown, perhaps near the rector of the James City Parish Church, pat- ruinous statehouse. In October 1677 payment ented a long, narrow 5.5 acre tract that occu- was made for “making a sufficient ditch about pied much of the ridge upon which Structure the magazine” (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660- 144 is located. Hampton had 6 months in which 1693:116). to develop his property or face forfeiture (Patent Book 1:689). He may have abandoned Supplementary Information his patent because he learned that part of it had Structure 113, on Tract H, tentatively has been been used as a burial ground for non-parishio- identified as a powder magazine (Carson et al. ners (such as newly arrived settlers) or for 1992:n.p.). On March 18, 1683, Thomas Lord people of lesser means, such as servants. Culpeper reported that lightening set the woods on fire and wind carried the blaze to the “corps 6. With regard to the quotation about de garde, wch was burnt in two hours to the Berkeley’s apartment’s being “a coits cast” from ground, from thence sparkes flew to the two the other end of the statehouse, a typical houses about 40 yards distant where the arms colonial coit’s cast reportedly could range from and powder was. The first was actually burning 18 to 20 yards (54 to 60 feet), depending upon but by God’s mercy quenched, and some the player’s strength (Carson 1989:79). Thus, if sparkes caught upon the shingles where the Bay 5 of Structure 144 was the statehouse powder was, but by the desperateness of the burned during Bacon’s Rebellion, Berkeley’s sergeant and soldiers, forward beyond valour, apartment “at th’ other end of the statehouse” that was put out also. All things are now as safe would have been 120 feet or more away. as before and the losse is very inconsiderable.” He added that exploding granades and a mortar shell killed two horses and the soldiers were SOME OF THE BUILDINGS THE GOVERNMENT “frightened out of their wits” (Culpeper, March 18, 1683). Afterward, it was decided that “Ye SED FTER THE EPTEMBER TATE U A S 1676 S - brick windmill att Green Spring is ye securest HOUSE FIRE place for ye Powder and all other his Majesties stores, to be kept in & yt a Court of Guard be A Storehouse for Powder built adjoining to ye same” (McIlwaine 1925- When the burgesses convened in February 1945:I:40). In May 1691 Colonel William 1677, they deliberated about where to build a Browne, the former owner of Study Unit 4 Tract new statehouse to replace the one “now Burnt K Lots C and D, was paid for “storehouse room downe by that Arch Rebell and traiter for ammunition of the fort at James City” Nathaniel Bacon the younger, and allso the (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1693-1702:187). houses in James City.” Some consideration was given to rebuilding the statehouse at Tindall’s In January 1693 a decision was made to build a (Gloucester) Point. Meanwhile, on February vaulted powder room at Jamestown, in which 20, 1677, the assembly decided to erect “a the colony’s ammunition could be stored. That good strong sufficient storehouse for securing project had been completed by July, when the powder sent in by his most sacred Majesty Governor Edmund Andros informed his superi-

Appendix 3-E 3-E-27 ors that “a magazine and store house have been held office. In September 1683, Culpeper built” (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1693-1702:275; informed his superiors that he had “given all C. O. 5/1308 f 150). The Rev. James Blair, a encouragement possible for the rebuilding of outspoken critic of Governor Andros, in 1697 James City, the General Courts, Public Offices told officials in England that he had “thrown and meeting of assemblys, having been always away a great deal of money in raising [razing] kept there. . . . But there being an apprehension an old fort at Jamestown, & in building a in many persons that there are other places in powder house. . . . The powder House stands all the country more proper for a metropolis. . . . alone without any Garrison to defend it, and is a There hath not till now of late been any great ready prey for any foreign or domestic enemy” advance therein” (C. O. 5/1356 #68). (Perry 1969:I:14). Andros’ powder magazine was on the banks of the James, at the southwest Because the statehouse had been destroyed, corner of Study Unit 4 Tract U Lot B. The the colony’s highest ranking officials (which nearby fort’s gunner, Edward Ross, complained included the governor and his 11 councillors periodically about the magazine’s dampness and the assembly’s 40 burgesses) were obliged and the need to re-hoop barrels of powder to find other facilities in which to meet. The (James City County Plat Book 2:6; McIlwaine council was quite mobile. In 1680 its members 1925-1945:II:40). convened at Green Spring and afterward at sites that ranged from James City and Gloucester Much of the colony’s military materiel didn’t Counties to New Kent and Charles City. The fare very well, for it was kept in the statehouse assembly met at Green Spring in 1677, but by that was destroyed by fire in October 1698. On April 1679 had begun meeting in Jamestown in February 1, 1699, Edward Ross, gunner of the rented accommodations (McIlwaine 1918:19; fort at Jamestown and owner of Study Unit 4 Hening 1809-823:I:433, 455). In June 1680 the Tract R, a ferry landing, reported upon the burgesses met at Mrs. Susanne Fisher’s house in military equipment in his possession that had Jamestown, while the Council convened at been “removed from the state house, which had William Sherwood’s (Structure 31 on Study Unit been burned.” Included were “burnt barrels of 1 Tract D Lot A). In time, the Council’s habit of Musket at ye statehouse 197; burnt locks from meeting in William Sherwood’s Great Hall do. 180; burnt hammer hatchets 77; burnt became a tradition and the General Court often hoops, swivel and springs of Granado pouches convened there, too. Sherwood periodically 99; burnt spears of halberts 3; burnt spears of hosted the assembly and its committees and sweet feathers 445; and baskets of wch 4 broke the Council met at Henry Gauler’s ordinary in bringing burnt locks from ye statehouse 20” (probably Structure 17 Bay 2 on Study Unit 4 (McIlwaine 1925-1945:II:40). The Council Tract C). In June 1680 funds were given to minutes for April 26, 1699, indicate that “No William Sherwood and Thomas Rabley “for the arms had been sent into the colony since 1692, reparations of their houses besides the allow- when 200 were sent in by Jeffrey Jeffreys, ance made for rent, their houses being very which were all burnt last fall in the statehouse” much impaired” by hosting official meetings. In (Sainsbury 1964:17:306). 1682 Captain William Armiger (Study Unit 4 Tract J) provided an assembly room, whereas Temporary Meeting Places And Facili- Jamestown’s burgess Thomas Clayton (perhaps ties of Study Unit 4 Tract A) and George Lee (of On May 31, 1677, the Governor’s Council Structure 115 Bays 3 and 4 on Study Unit 4 acknowledged the need to build or repair a Tract K Lots C and D) hosted committee meet- house for the governor to live in “and also a ings. In April 1684 Mrs. Ann Mason was paid statehouse” (McIlwaine 1924:516; Hening for providing an assembly room, “the two 1809-1823:II:405). Lady Frances Berkeley’s chambers over it for a clerks office, the council cousin, Thomas Lord Culpeper, became gover- chamber, and two courts.” While the location of nor in 1677 and sometime prior to June 1678 Mrs. Mason’s home is uncertain, she may have took up residence at Green Spring, which been occupying the late Thomas Rabley’s house mansion had been restored to habitable condi- (Structure 125 on Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot B), tion. It appears that very little was done about for there was a familial connection between the building a statehouse while Governor Culpeper Rableys and the Masons (Surry County Order

Appendix 3-E 3-E-28 Book 1677-1691:682; McIlwaine 1905- scattered owing to the burning of the state- 1915:1660-1693:119, 136, 174, 256, 282; house.” The Council felt that “the Most Secure & 1918:5, 8, 82, 89; Hening 1809-1823:II:458; Convenient place for the present Lodging the C.O. 5/1355 f 386). said Records” was Mrs. Sherwood’s brick house. Later, Governor Francis Nicholson said Commencing in October 1676, the justices of that “When the state house was burnt they James City County, who traditionally had held saved all the records, but ecclesiastical, civil their monthly court sessions in the statehouse, and military were all intermingled. They have utilizing the General Court chamber, were since been sorted and methodized” (Sainsbury obliged to find other accommodations in which 1964:16:951; 17:579; McIlwaine 1925- to convene. Official records reveal that the 1945:I:392). justices built their own courthouse, a structure that by February 1691 had become “very JAMESTOWN’S MISSING HOUSES ruinous” (McIlwaine 1925-1945:I:161-162). It is uncertain where the James City County On September 12, 1662, the Privy Council courthouse was located; however, by law it had instructed Sir William Berkeley to see that to be somewhere within urban Jamestown, the towns were built on each of the colony’s rivers, county seat. commencing with the James. He was told to “give good example yourself by building some The Jail houses there, which will in a short time turn to In May 1684 a proposed act for building county profit.” He also was supposed to inform his prisons was amended to require “pales or councillors that the king would look very pallasadoes and to be but 120 feet square.” In favorably upon it if “each of them build one or December 1685 it was resolved that “there be a more houses there.” The Privy Council wanted good, substantial strong publique prison house to know how the councillors responded to their built in James City att ye charge of ye County” instructions and who built houses. Although (McIlwaine 1918:82; 1905-1915:1660- the destruction of records for this period 1693:221). It is uncertain where the James City obscures the names of Berkeley’s council, County prison or jail (which also served the Thomas Ludwell, Francis Moryson, and Tho- General Court) was located. According to mas Stegg II are known members and Miles Governor Edmund Andros, “on the 20th Inst. Cary, Henry Randolph, and John Stringer [October 20, 1698] a fire broke out in a house served in capacities that imply their involve- adjoining the State-house, which in a very short ment (McIlwaine 1924:514). This probably time was wholly burnt, and also the prison” explains why Colonels Thomas Ludwell and (Sainsbury 1964:16:951; 17:579; McIlwaine Thomas Stegg II built the rowhouse bay that 1925-1945:I:392). This statement suggests that led to their receiving a patent in 1667. the prison, statehouse, and another building were in relatively close proximity. If the jail In December 1662 when special legislation was was in Bay 4 of Structure 144 (as has been enacted that mandated the construction and hypothesized by APVA), that structure would subsidization of prototypical brick houses, have been ruinous in April 1694 when Philip each of Virginia’s 17 counties was supposed to Ludwell II obtained a patent for a 1 ½ acre lot see that one was built (Hening 1809- “adjoyning to the Ruins of his three Brick 1823:II:172-176). Although documentary houses between the State house and the Coun- research has shown that the house built by try house” (Patent Book 8:315). Andros said James City County was part of Structure 115, that because the fire occurred during court- the justices of Nansemond and Isle of Wight time, when many people were there, “all Counties were paid for having built brick records and papers were saved and on being houses and York, Charles City, and Henrico sorted and listed are found undamnified.” The Counties provided the funds and authorization records reportedly were thrown from the for their houses to be built. Thomas Hunt was building and landed in heaps. Andros said that paid for building Nansemond County’s house the records would be moved to a brick house in and Herman Simone, a private citizen, was Jamestown and that he had issued a proclama- compensated for erecting a brick house in tion for “bringing in the books and papers Jamestown, seemingly upon his own lot (York

Appendix 3-E 3-E-29 County Deeds, Orders, Wills 3:183; Charles City 4 Tract P) and apparently built a home (Patent County Orders 1:34; Clarendon MS ff 275-276). Book 7:292). Although the land owned by some In April 1665 Thomas Ludwell informed of these people has been identified, many of the officials in England that in obedience to the structures they erected await discovery. king’s instructions, Virginians had “begun a town of brick and have allreddy built enough to accommodate both the publique affairs of ye country and to begin a factory for merchants and shall increase it as there shall bee occasion for it (C.O. 1/19 ff 75-76).

Thomas Harris and Thomas Hunt agreed to finish the houses they were building (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1660-1693:49-50) Other yet-to-be- discovered Jamestown houses mentioned in documentary sources dating to the second half of the seventeenth century belonged to James Mason, William Stanton, and Peter Ashton, all of whom hosted public meetings. The buildings that belonged to Thomas Harris, personally, and to Colonel Robert Holt also await discovery. In 1677, when Governor William Berkeley asked to be reimbursed for the loss of houses due to their destruction during Bacon’s Rebel- lion, he claimed to have lost five houses at Jamestown (C.O. 1/39 ff 52-53).

In 1682, incoming governor Thomas Lord Culpeper brought orders to see that Jamestown was “rebuilt as soon as possible” (Sainsbury 1964:10:341). Funding for house construction may have been available via public subsidies, for in December 1682 Culpeper told his council that he felt there should be no subsidies for rebuilding (McIlwaine 1918:57). However, there were no legal prohibitions against enlarg- ing existing buildings (for example, adding onto Structure 144). Sometime prior to September 20, 1683, Culpeper noted in the margin of his instructions that “Mr. Auditor Bacon hath lately built two very good ones and Coll. Bridger and one Mr Sherwood are going about several wch will be finished this or next year and there are several others marked out for building” (C. O. 5/1356 #68). Colonel Nathaniel Bacon’s houses probably were located in Study Unit 4 Tract S, which Bacon patented in 1683, and Sherwood could have erected new improvements upon Tracts B, C, D and F in Study Unit 1. He also may have chosen to rebuild or enhance Structure 1/2, on Tract C. However, no information is available on houses or land owned by Colonel Joseph Bridger. Edward Chilton patented a lot in April 1683 (Study Unit

Appendix 3-E 3-E-30 REFERENCES CITED

Ambler, John Jaquelin 1826. History of Ambler Family in Virginia. Microfilm on file at the Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Ambler Manuscripts 1636-1809 Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Transcripts and microfilm, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Andrews, Charles, ed. 1967 Narratives of the Insurrections, 1665-1690. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York.

Beverley, Robert I 1652-1700 Title Book. Beverley Papers, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia.

Beverley, Robert II 1947 History of the Present State of Virginia (1705). L. B.Wright, ed. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina..

Byrd, William II 1941 The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712. Louis B. Wright and Marion Tinling, eds. The Dietz Press Inc., Richmond, Virginia.

Carson, Jane 1989 Colonial Virginians At Play. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Charles City County 1655-1846 Deeds, Wills, Order Books, Land Tax Lists. Charles City County Courthouse, Charles City, and Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Clayton, John 1688 Map of Jamestown and May 12, 1688, letter to Robert Boyle. Boyle Papers 39, Item 3, ff 160-162. Archives of the Royal Society of London, London. Facsimile, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Colonial Office (C.O.) 1607-1747 Colonial Office Papers, British Public Records Office, Kew, England. Survey Reports and Microfilms, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Cotter, John L. 1958 Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown Virginia. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Culpeper, Thomas 1683 Letter to George Legg(e), Lord Dartmouth, March 18, 1682/83. Dartmouth Papers, Stafford County Record Office, Stafford, England.

Desandrouins, Jean Nicholas 1781 Plan du terein a la Rive Gauche de la Riviere de James. Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Force, Peter, comp. 1963 Tracts and Other Papers, Relating to the Origin, Settlement and Progress of the Colonies in North America. 4 vols. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass.

Appendix 3-E 3-E-31 Harrison, George 1624 April 17, 1624, will. Transcript. Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia.

Hening, William W., ed. 1809-1823 The Statutes At Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia. 13 vols. Samuel Pleasants, Richmond, Virginia. Reprinted 1967, 1969.

Lee Manuscripts 1638-1837 Manuscripts on file, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia.

Lee, William and Hannah Philippa 1771 Deed of trust dated January 10, 1771, with Arthur Lee and Dr. Fleming Pinkston. Mssll:4 L5102:1 Oversize, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia.

Leonard, Cynthia M., comp. 1978 The General Assembly of Virginia, July 30, 1619 -January 11, 1978, A Bicentennial Register of Members. Virginia State Library Board, Richmond, Virginia.

McGhan, Judith 1993 Virginia Will Records. Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

McIlwaine, H. R., ed. 1918 Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 3 vols. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia. Reprinted 1979.

1925-1945 Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 5 vols. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia. McIlwaine, H. R., ed. 1924 Minutes of Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia. The Library Board, Rich- mond, Virginia. Reprinted 1934,1979.

McIlwaine, H. R. et al, eds. 1905-1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1619-1776. 13 Vols. Virginia State Library, Rich- mond, Virginia.

Meyer, Virginia M. and John F. Dorman, eds. 1987 Adventurers of Purse and Person, 1607-1624/25. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

Nugent, Nell M. 1969-1979 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants. 3 vols. Dietz Press, Richmond and Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

Patent Books 1623-1762 Virginia Land Office Patent Books. Microfilm on file at Library of Virginia, Richmond, and Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Perry, William S., comp. 1969 Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church. Vol. I, Virginia. AMS Press, New York, New York. . Principal Probate Register (P.P.R.) 1605-1693 Principal Probate Register, British Public Records Office, Kew, England. Survey Reports and photocopies, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Privy Council (P.C.) 1676-1680 Privy Council, British Public Records Office, Kew, England. Survey Reports and photocopies, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Wllliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Appendix 3-E 3-E-32 Public Record Office (P.R.O.) 1678-1679 Public Record Office, British Public Records Office, Kew, England. Survey Reports and photocopies, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Sainsbury, William Noel et al., comp. 1964 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies. 22 vols. Kraus Reprint, Vaduz. Smith, John et al. 1745 April 4, 1745 deed of John Smith and wife, Mary, and Martha Jaquelin, to Richard Ambler. New York Historical Society, New York, New York.

Stanard, William G., ed. 1913 Appraisal of Estate of Philip Ludwell, Esquire, Deceased. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 21:395-416.

Stanard, William G. and Mary Stanard 1965 Colonial Virginia Register. Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

Surry County 1653-1920 Deeds, Wills, Inventories, Orders, Legislative Petitions, Fiduciary Accounts, Censuses. Surry County Courthouse, Surry, Virginia, and the Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Withington, Lothrop 1980 Virginia Gleanings in England. Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

York County 1633-1811 Deeds, Wills, Inventories, Orders. York County Courthouse, Yorktown, and Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. Microfilms on file at Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Appendix 3-E 3-E-33 ENDNOTES

1 The structure Jarrett and his wife, Johannah, occupied (Bay 1 of Structure 17) was owned by Micajah Perry and Company, the firm of which Mrs. Jarrett’s uncle, Micajah Perry, was principal owner. 2 It should be noted that on March 30, 1655, Sir William Berkeley sold Commonwealth Governor Richard Bennett “the westernmost of the three brickhouses which I there built” (McIlwaine 1924:503; Hening 1809-1823:407). 3 B erkeley’s sale of a rowhouse unit to Bennett, the Commonwealth governor, does not imply that it was in a public building, as has been hypothesized by APVA. 4 In March 1655 when William Berkeley disposed of the units of his three bay rowhouse, he refereed to two of the units as “the old statehouse” and “the late statehouse.” Twice during 1656 and once during 1660, one of the men who purchased a rowhouse unit from Berkeley hosted meetings of the Governor’s Council and the assembly (McIlwaine 1924:503; 1905-1915:1619-1660:96, 101; 1660-1693:8). Thus, the tradition of using units in the Berkeley-built rowhouse for official meetings seems to have continued until at least 1660. 5 On January 6, 1694, William Sherwood leased part of Study Unit 1 Tract E to Francis Bullifant. Bullifant’s leasehold, which was 2 acres in sizse and extended along the waterfront, was bound “Westerly by James River, Southerly by the Slash or Branch yt Pts. this land & the State howse, Easterly by the great Road & Northerly by ye Sd. Slash that Pts. this Land and the block howse land” (Ambler MS 49). 6 Bacon died on March 16, 1692, one day after making his will.

Appendix 3-E 3-E-34 APPENDIX 3-F E-mail Memorandum, “Structure 17 and 144”

Cary Carson to Bill Kelso, et al, 27 February 2002

Appendix 3-F Subject: JAMESTOWN STRUCTURES 17 AND stands Will’s challenge, then (2) where might 144 the patent fit instead? Only after we have settled the first question, or the first and the Date: February 27, 2002 second, can we get back to S144. The good news is that, in the meantime, Jamie May and her From: Cary Carson field crew have finished excavating the S144 row and have brought to light additional To: William Kelso and others (see mailing list evidence that must now figure in our interpre- below) tation of the building. I might add that that new evidence makes even more difficult some To One and All, aspects of the argument that Carl, Martha, and I presented last February. Last December Bill circulated Will Rieley’s “Preliminary Assessment of Selected 17th This initial communication addresses only the Century Surveys at Jamestown Island, Part II.” matter of the S17 title history and the rel- I reviewed it quickly then, but only now have evance (or not) of the Ludwell patent. My finally had time to read it carefully enough to choice of e-mail is deliberate. I want to present compare Will’s argument point for point with my thinking in a form that gives everybody on Martha McCartney’s published report on land the mailing list something she or he can scruti- ownership patterns and my own report on nize, pull apart, and eventually reply to in a Structure 17, which I finished last fall and sent medium that can be shared with all other to everyone a couple months ago. At last I am interested parties. In other words, I propose ready to give Will’s assessment the detailed and that we open a forum where anyone and serious response such a conscientious piece of everyone can weigh in by adding his or her own research deserves. attachment to what is in effect an online chat room. Eventually, when all is said and done, we You will recall that this long detour back to will have reached agreement or, second best, Structure 17 started twelve months ago when we will know exactly where we think the other Bill brought us together to discuss the struc- guy’s logic breaks down. As Bill and I said three tural development and ownership history of months ago, neither one of us cares what the Structure 144, the so-called Ludwell Statehouse right answer turns out to be. Both of us are Group. Will found our use of one document in keenly interested to see if a right answer can be particular, the Ludwell-Stegg patent of 1667, found. The record of our online conversation unconvincing. Challenging our shaky interpre- will tell us if we have or haven’t. tation, he advanced a compelling case that the language of the patent, especially its metes and bounds, not only did not work at S144, but instead appeared to match the property STRUCTURE 17 TITLE HISTORY downriver on which rowhouse 17 had stood. Because Martha had already put the jigsaw Will’s report hypothesizes a history of property puzzle of separate parcels together into a ownership for Structure 17 beginning with a comprehensible title history for that property, patent from William Berkeley to Thomas but without reference to the 1667 Ludwell- Ludwell and Thomas Stegg in which are de- Stegg patent, we invited Will to “deconstruct” scribed “those three houses all wch Joyntly Martha’s title chain and try to put it back were formerly called by the name of old State together making room for the patent if he house” (p. 1). could. His “Part II” report makes that attempt. Should we accept the title chain that Will argues So, I remind everybody that ultimately we’re follows from this initial property transfer? I still chasing the history of S144. First, though, cannot, despite the seemingly neat fit between we have to dispose of one or two prior ques- the S17 property and the distances and bear- tions: (1) Does the 1667 patent really pertain to ings set out in the survey. There are three the three-unit rowhouse known as Structure problems that I can’t resolve using Will’s 17? If not, if Martha’s reconstruction with- report.

Appendix 3-F 3-F-2 Problem No. 1

The first is a problem with a connected string of • February 25, 1663: Patent by George documents that are, I believe, securely an- Marable I refers to House 2 as his “now dwell- chored to the site itself, specifically to the Turf ing house.” Mentions that he bought the Fort (S157) immediately to the east of S17. My property from Mrs. Ann Talbot’s heirs and that strategy here follows the one suggested by Will she had acquired the acreage from Thomas (p. 1): “We may have to rely more heavily on Woodhouse [Patent Book 5:253-254]. archaeological excavations to locate key buildings, which would then serve as anchors • September 1, 1657: Thomas Woodhouse to groupings of land patents.” In the following sells 1/2 ac. (Lot B) to Ann Talbot [Patent Book discussion, the three parts of rowhouse 17 are 5:253-254]. designated House 1 (easternmost), House 2 (middle), and House 3 (westernmost). My • October 17, 1655: Thomas Woodhouse structures report uses the same numbering patents 1 ac. riverfront lot (Lot C, subsequently system if you have that document in front of subdivided into half acre Lots A and B). No you. reference to any improvements [Patent Book 3:380]. The strategy then is to start with something that has been physically located on the site, the There it is, an unbroken chain of title from 1710 Turf Fort, and work backwards to validate a back to 1655 and unquestionably pertaining to series of linked documents. (Specific citations Structure 17 by association with the Turf Fort. can be found in Martha’s NPS report, Documen- tary History of Jamestown Island, Vol. II: Land As the 1667 Ludwell-Stegg patent describes the Ownership.) The chain begins with a deed of eastern boundary line passing through the sale [Ambler ms., 101] dated November 6, “westernmost house and the middle house,” 1710: Will has had to draw it between Lots A and B between Houses 3 and 2. The 1696 deed of sale • November 6, 1710: States that Structure proves that the property line actually fell 17, House 1 (plus 1/2 ac., Lot A) “abutts East on between Houses 2 and 1, between Marable’s the Old Fort” (S157) thus establishing a secure ruined dwelling and the one that had lately link between that known landmark and the been occupied by Jarrett. When the boundary easternmost house once occupied by John line is moved to its documented location, the Jarrett, whom the document mentions by name distances and bearings given in the Ludwell- and says is now deceased. (This 1710 sale was Stegg patent and survey no longer match the recorded 11 years later on 9/9/1721 in the physical evidence. The starting point for the James City County court, the event referred to survey shifts eastward to the junction where in the Rieley report even though the sale really the middle house (House 2) joins the east house took place in 1710.) (House 1), not the west house (House 3) mentioned in the document. Therefore, the • November 12, 1696: George Marable II sells Ludwell-Stegg patent of 1667 does not pertain House 2, the middle house then standing in to this property and “the old State house” it ruins, to William Sherwood. The deed of sale refers to must have been located someplace explains that Marable’s dwelling is “abutting on else. and joyning easterly to the brick house and land now in possession of John Jarrett” (House Problem No. 2 1). The owner of Jarrett’s house was his land- lord (and father-in-law) Micajah Perry, mer- There is no independent confirming evidence chant of London, the seller of the property in that William Berkeley ever owned any part of 1710. George II describes House 2 as formerly Structure 17. Certainly not in 1665, the date belonging to his father, George Marable I cited in Will’s report. That is an error repeated [Ambler ms., 62]. Will’s report appears to make from Will’s footnoted source, Conway no mention or use of this key 1696 document. Robinson. He was a mid 19th-century anti-

Appendix 3-F 3-F-3 quary who extracted information from vol- explanation and documentation seem more umes of the Minutes of the Council and General plausible and defensible to you. Attach every- Court. Conway made a mistake in copying the thing to this e-mail and hit “Reply to All” so date of the sale between Berkeley and Richard everyone can then scrutinize your alternative. Bennett, Richard Morrison, and Thomas Woodhouse. He wrote down 1665 when it If after a reasonable waiting period I receive no should have been 1655. This transcription is rebuttal, I will proceed on the assumption that recorded accurately in Henings Statutes, I, we may put Will’s “Part II” report aside—with 407, and Journal of the House, I, 69-97. genuine thanks for putting us through our paces—and return to the problem of under- As you see above, in 1655 (October 17) Thomas standing S144. At the very least, Will’s counter Woodhouse was patenting a half acre of land argument has had the valuable consequence of along the river on which he and George forcing us to demonstrate with the records why Marable I would later build Structure 17, we have long believed that no part of S17 ever Houses 1 and 2. The parcel was unimproved in served as a statehouse, “first” or otherwise. October. Woodhouse clearly had his fingers in at least two pies. The property that he, Bennett, Let me hear from you. No, let us all hear from and Morrison bought from Berkeley on March you. 24 and March 30, 1655—a parcel already improved with “three brick houses which I Cary [Berkeley] there built”—was clearly one of his Research Division, Colonial Williamsburg other investments someplace else in town.

Problem No. 3 MAILING LIST Will Rieley Even if the date of the Berkeley sale wasn’t an Sophie Johnston (research asst.) issue, the reference to the Governor’s “three Bill Kelso brick houses” flies in the face of incontrovert- Jamie May ible archaeological evidence. The three units in Carl Lounsbury rowhouse 17 were built at two different times. Willie Graham Houses 1 and 2 were erected first, presumably Cary Carson by Woodhouse and Marable and probably in Martha McCartney response to the town building act of 1662. Karen Rehm Marable refers to his “now dwelling house” Alec Gould (House 2) by February 1663. The two units Marley Brown remained standing an unknown number of Bly Straube years before they were severely damaged by a Eric Deetz fire, perhaps in Bacon’s Rebellion. House 3 was built new on the west end of the row as part of the rebuilding of Houses 2 and 1. This sequenc- ing is very clear from the archaeological evidence. Therefore, there is simply no way that these three brick houses can be the same three brick houses that Berkeley stated that he’d already built by 1655.

For these reasons—one, two, three—I have concluded that, wherever else the 1667 Ludwell-Stegg patent and survey belong, they do not pertain to Structure 17. But now I invite everybody on this mailing list to examine the evidence presented here and the logic of my train of thought. Prove me wrong if you can. Once you’ve done that, follow up with whatever

Appendix 3-F 3-F-4 The footprint of House 5, Structure 144 has the The property description appears to begin in appearance of a very upscale, late seventeenth- the southwestern corner of the lot, but interest- century residence. If a house, the plan can be ingly, no reference is made to Phillip Ludwell interpreted as having had a porch on the front, who owned the property that abutted House 5, a center passage, a hall on one side, and a Structure 144 to the west—ownership that chamber on the other. To the rear would have extended back prior to 1694. In 1694, though, been a stair tower. Since it appears that Robert Ludwell firmed up control of his lots by patent- Beverley built a house in the vicinity of these ing it, the same year Beverley patented his lot foundations, we attempted to plot his lot using to the east. Oddly, the statehouse is also not the description from the 1694 patent [ex- used as a landmark in this patent. Instead, what cerpted below] to see if it incorporated House is mentioned i is a “Ditch which Divides this 5. If so, a case could be made for House 5 from the western Side of the Lands late of having been Beverley’s dwelling. Lawrence Collo Bacon or one of them at the road side.” Presumably this was a road that ran The patent ties Beverley’s lot to the main road, along the bottom of Beverley’s lot and turned so it is critical to link that feature to Structure southward to run alongside or on William 144 and plot them together. To do this we have Edwards’ lot to his ferry landing. [Note that the used details of maps that show this area of the Lawrence/Bacon lot can be placed between island that indicate the road—the John Soane William Edwards to the west, and John Howard plat of 1681 for William Sherwood (Library of to the east. Only the western boundary line can Congress), the Desandrouins map of 1781-82, be firmly pinned down].But if the lot started and John Cotter’s Archeological Base Map of here, there seems to not be enough space to the Site of “James Towne” Jamestown Island, accommodate the full 3.2875 acres (3 acres 1 Virginia published in 1958. The maps have rood 6 poles), nor could the lot line neatly run been overlain on a plat that we created of lots north 600.6 feet to the slash, turn east and run in the vicinity of Structure 144 that have a high 54.45 feet in any of the scenarios that we degree of certainty of having been located created based on the map overlays. where they are depicted. The lots are delin- eated based on patent descriptions. Another problem is that the 1,006.5 feet for the distance given along the road is not very The exercise proved inconclusive for several convincing either. The dimensions do not seem reasons. One of the greatest problems was the to work, unless the description actually was ambiguity in the patent description. Running intended to start at the Lawrence/Bacon line, clockwise, it started: extend west for some distance, then north 600.6 feet, then 54.45 feet eastwardly to the “at the Southermost End of the Ditch which cart road, and then the final measurement was Divides this from the western Side of the Lands to incorporate both the angle of the road (in a late of Lawrence Collo Bacon or one of them at straight line) and the return west at the bottom the road side.” It then extended “Northward of the lot to the point of beginning. Perhaps the along the Ditch 36 poles and 2/5 of a pole dimensions would work if interpreted in this [600.6 feet] to a Slash called Pitch and Tarr manner, but given the unclear nature of the Slash or Swamp, then Along Up that Slash till it description and the uncertain size of the Come to the Maine Cart road westward makeing Lawrence/Bacon tract, we can not precisely good in a right line 3.3 pole [54.45 feet], then locate the beginning point. down that Cart road South Eastwards as it Windeth but makeing good in a right line 61 One way to test the accuracy of the various poles [1,006.5 feet] to the place it begun.” layouts is to calculate their acreage (they (Ambler MS 52; Nugent 1969-1979: II: 396; should be 3.2875 acres). Soane comes short, Patent Book 8: 499; Robert Beverley Title Book, measuring 2.92 acres, Cotter is too large at quoted in Martha W. McCartney and Christina 3.74 acres, but Desandrouins was not far off, A Kiddle, “Documentary History of Jamestown measuring 3.36 acres. Given the nature of Island Volume II: Land Ownership,” Colonial measuring equipment in the seventeenth Williamsburg Foundation, 2000.) century, it may come as no surprise that Soane

Appendix 3-G 3-G-2 is off some; how much may be as much related to sloppiness in overlaying the maps as to the accuracy of the Soane plat itself.

Thus, at best we can say that it remains inconclusive as to whether Robert Beverley’s 1694 patent gave him ownership of the land on which House 5, Structure 144 stood based on this study. Certainly the Desandrouins map argues for the Beverley patent falling outside of House 5, but Cotter’s archaeological plan—the one drawing for which physical remains can be plotted against each other—seemingly divides House 5 in two.

Appendix 3-G 3-G-3 LOTS THAT CAN BE DEFINITIVELY PLACED IN ASSOCIATION WITH STRUCTURE 144.

PITCH-AND-TAR SWAMP

P. Ludwell 1694

Country House

Edward Ross' Ferry to Gray's Creek STRUCTURE Statehouse 144

Chilton 1683

S Approximate seventeenth-century shoreline.

Wm. Edwards 1690 Vicinity of Brick Fort

Great gum R I V Church E R

Edward's Ferry to Crouche's Creek

050 100 150 200 250

FEET

2002

Willie Graham 20 August 2002 Detail Tracing JOHN SOANE PLAT, 1681 of William Sherwood's 28 1/2 acres overlayed onto re-created seventeenth- century lots in vicinity of Structure 144 [pitch and R o a Tarr swamp] d e

Pitch-and-Tar Swamp P. Ludwell 1694

Country House

Edward Ross' Ferry to Gray's Creek Statehouse R. BEVERLEY 1694

Chilton 1683

Jn. Howard 1694

Wm. Edwards 1690 Vicinity of Brick Fort R Great gum Church I V E Precisely overlaying the Soane plat on a modern map is difficult R and calls into questions the accuracy of the relationship between parts of the two. Given this constraint, the main road is located Edward's Ferry to significantly to the east of where it shows up when plotting either Crouche's Creek John Cotter's archaeological map of 1958, or Jean-Nicholas Desandrouins map of 1781-82. If the relationship between these two documents can be trusted, Robert Beverley's lot (which is TRACE OF SOANE MAPS plotted in relationship to the road) does not overlay any of Structure RE-CREATED SEVENTEENTH- 144. Therefore, it suggests that Beverley's house of the 1690s CENTURY LOT LAYOUT has yet to be discvoered by archaeologists and is not part of the Structure 144 complex. The size of the lot should measure 3.29 acres; here it works out to 2.92 acres.

0 50 100 150 200 250

FEET

1681 2002

Map overlay by Willie Graham, Carrie Alblinger and William Graham, Jr., 20 August 2002 Detail, tracing JEAN-NICHOLAS DESANDROUINS MAP,1781-82 "Plan duterein a la Rive Gauche de la Riviere de James" overlayed onto re-created seventeenth-century lot layout in vicinity of Structure 144

Pitch-and-Tar Swamp P. Ludwell 1694

Building Country House

R. BEVERLEY 1694 R Edward Ross' Ferry o to Gray's Creek a d Statehouse

Chilton 1683

Jn. Howard 1694 Revolutionary War fort

Wm. Edwards 1690 Vicinity of Brick Fort

Great gum R I Church V E Building, thought R to be church Building

Edward's Ferry to Crouche's Creek

Of the three maps used in this sequence as overlays, the Desandrouins map is potentially the least accurate at this scale. Yet the main road fits fairly well with TRACE OF DESANDROUINS MAP John Cotter's archaeological findings, much better than John Soane's map can be RE-CREATED SEVENTEENTH- made to match. Assuming the overlay of these two documents is accurate, Robert CENTURY LOT LAYOUT Beverley's lot of 1694 does not include any of Structure 144. Given the slop in overlaying the map, it is possible that, based on Desandrouins, Beverley's lot abutted Hosue 5. Thus, it would seem, based on this map, that House 5 was not Beverley's property. The size of the lot should measure 3.29 acres; here it works 0 50 100 150 200 250 out to 3.36 acres. FEET

1781-82 2002

Map overlay by Willie Graham, Carrie Alblinger and William Graham, Jr., 20 August 2002 JOHN L. COTTER, 1958 Detail,Archeological Base Map of the Site of "James Towne," Jamestown Island, Virginia overlayed onto re-created seventeenth-century lots in vicinity of Structure 144

Pitch-and-Tar Swamp

P. Ludwell 1694

R. BEVERLEY 1694 Country House

Edward Ross' Ferry to Gray's Creek Statehouse

Chilton 1683

Jn. Howard 1694

Wm. Edwards 1690 Vicinity of Brick Fort R Great gum Church I V E R Edward's Ferry to Crouche's Creek Perhaps John Cotter's archaeological map should be the most trusted document of this exercise since it records the actual physical location of man-made features on this area of the island. The relationship of Structure 144 to the seventeenth-century COTTER EXCAVATIONS OF ROAD road, assuming it to have been properly interpreted by the archaeologists, is COTTER EXCAVATIONS/ recorded here. Note the close match between Cotter's discoveries and the TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES Desandrouins overlay on the combined map. When plotted against this RE-CREATED SEVENTEENTH- archaeological map, though, Robert Beverley's lot cuts through the middle of CENTURY LOT LAYOUT House 5 of Structure 144, just as it did on the Desandrouins map. Whether House 5 could have served as Beverley's dwelling is not answered by this document. The size of the lot should measure 3.29 acres; here it works out to 3.74 acres.

025050 100 150 200

FEET

1958 2002

Map overlay by Willie Graham, Carrie Alblinger and William Graham, Jr., 20 August 2002 COMPILATION MAP Details from John Soane Plat of 1681, Desandrouins Map of 1781-82, and John Cotter Archeological Base Map of Jamestown 1958, overlayed onto re-created seventeenth-century lot layout of Structure 144.

[pitch and R o a Tarr swamp] d e

Pitch-and-Tar Swamp P. Ludwell 1694

Building Country House

R Edward Ross' o a Ferry to Gray's d Creek Statehouse

Chilton 1683

Jn. Howard 1694

Revolutionary War fort Wm. Edwards 1690 Vicinity of Brick Fort

Great gum R I Church V E Building, thought R to be church Building

TRACE OF SOANE MAPS Edward's Ferry to TRACE OF DESANDROUINS MAP Crouche's Creek John Cotter's map, shown here in red and orange, records the portions of the COTTER EXCAVATIONS OF ROAD main road as it was excavated. The green portions of the map represent a COTTER EXCAVATIONS/ re-drawing of the Soane Plat. Note the close alignment of Cotter and TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES Desandrouins, and the misalignment, especially of the road, in the Soane map. RE-CREATED SEVENTEENTH- Either the course of the road changed in the eighteenth-century (and that is what CENTURY LOT LAYOUT is represented in Soane and Desandrouins), some or all of these maps are not accurate, or it has not been possible too accurately overlay these various maps.

0 50 100 150 200 250

FEET

1681 1781-82 1958 2002

Map overlays by Willie Graham, Carrie Alblinger and William Graham, Jr., 20 August 2002 APPENDIX 3-G Robert Beverley’s House Lot

Appendix 3-G CHAPTER 4 Drawings

Chapter 3 fence line

scaffold holes burnt floor joists

cellar with brick floor cellar with brick floor

brick floor

gauged-and- rubbed brick hearth remains of burnt remains of burnt remains of burnt floor joists floor joists floor joists

scaffold holes puncture floor of House 2 seemingly for construction of an end chimney in House 3 scaffold holes

0 25

FEET PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT

PERIOD I: ca. 1663 PERIOD II: shortly after 1663 PERIOD III: 1664/5 PERIOD IV: after 1665

PERIOD V: 1684/5 (House 5 rebuilt) PERIOD VI: ca. 1694

Notes

Porch and stair tower to House 5 do not bond to nor do their mortar recipes match the main foundations. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLAN Holes for scaffolding and fence are marked by LUDWELL STATEHOUSE GROUP different colors to group ones with similar characteristics. STRUCTURE 144, JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA Since few have been excavated, relative dates have Measured by Willie Graham, Carl Lounsbury and Jamie May, 2001 not been assign to these features. Drawn by Willie Graham OPTION A OPTION B NOTE: DOOR LOCATIONS ARE ASSUMPTIONS. ONLY WINDOWS MENTIONED IN DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PLANS.

DATE OF REFERENCE SUMMARY OF REFERENCE GENERAL COURT GENERAL COURT 1673 SECRETARY OF THE COLONY ASSIGNED EASTERN GARRET (ALTHOUGH HE APPARENTLY DID NOT MOVE IN) 1676 GENERAL COURT ON GROUND FLOOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY ABOVE COURT MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY PASSED BY "THE COURT DOOR" ASSEMBLY MEMBERS WATCHED CONFRONTATION BETWEEN BERKELEY AND BACON FROM A WINDOW IN THEIR ROOM PORCH PORCH BACON AND REBELS CONFRONTED BERKELEY "UPON A GREEN NOT A FLIGHT SHOT FROM THE END OF THE FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR STATEHOUSE" GOVERNOR WALKED "TOWARD HIS PRIVATE APARTM'T A COIT'S CAST DISTANCE AT TH' OTHER END OF THE STATEHOUSE" 1685 SECRETARY OF THE COLONY OCCUPIED THE PORCH CHAMBER "EVER SINCE YE STATEHOUSE WAS FIRST BUIILT, UNTIL BURNT"

HOUSE OF HOUSE OF WAITING ROOM BURGESSES BURGESSES ROOM WAITING

SECRETARY OF SECRETARY OF THE COLONY THE COLONY (PORCH CHAMBERS) (PORCH CHAMBERS)

SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR

SECRETARY OF SECRETARY OF COLONY ASSIGNED COLONY ASSIGNED EAST GARRET EAST GARRET

GARRET FLOOR GARRET FLOOR

PERIOD I: 1665-1676 Reconstructed plans: House 5, Structure 144 Drawings by William Graham, Jr. After Willie Graham FIREBOX BLOCKED OPTION A OPTION B 1691 OPTION C OPTION D FIREBOX BLOCKED FIREBOX BLOCKED FIREBOX BLOCKED 1691 1691 1691

MUNIMENT GENERAL COURT MUNIMENT GENERAL COURT GENERAL COURT MUNIMENT GENERAL COURT SECRETARY'S MUNIMENT ROOM ROOM ROOM OFFICE ROOM OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE SECRETARY'S SECRETARY'S SECRETARY'S

WAITING ROOM WAITING ROOM WAITING ROOM WAITING ROOM LATER DIVIDED PORCH LATER DIVIDED PORCH PORCH LATER DIVIDED PORCH LATER DIVIDED FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

HOUSE OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES BURGESSES

CLERK OF CLERK OF ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY (PORCH CHAMBERS) (PORCH CHAMBERS)

SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR NOTE: DOOR LOCATIONS ARE ASSUMPTIONS. ONLY WINDOWS MENTIONED IN DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PLANS.

DATE OF REFERENCE SUMMARY OF REFERENCE

1685 SECRETARY OF COLONY IN "YE LOWER ROOM...OPPOSITE TO YE COURTHOUSE ROOM" CLERK OF ASSEMBLY IN "PORCH CHAMBER" "STRONG PARTITION MADE UNDER SECOND GIRDER AT WEST END" OF THE SECRETARY'S ROOM FOR THE STORAGE OF RECORDS 1693 CHIMNEY BRICKED UP AND GENERAL COURTHOUSE WHITEWASHED PARTITION BUILT "BEFORE MR. SECRETARY'S OFFICE DOOR"

GARRET FLOOR GARRET FLOOR

PERIOD II: 1684-1698 Reconstructed plans: House 5, Structure 144 Drawings by William Graham, Jr. After Willie Graham SOUTH ELEVATION Note: House 2 in ruins.

RECONSTRUCTED ELEVATIONS STRUCTURE 144, JAMESTOWN As it may have appeared prior to 1698 EAST ELEVATION

William J. Graham, Jr. Delineator

(Previous page) Reconstructed bird’s-eye view of Structure 144, looking northwest. Computer rendering by William Graham, Jr., 2002.